Homosexuality and the Bible
A
Case Study in the Use of the Bible for Ethics
Loren L. Johns
Introduction
Homosexuality has proved to be one of the more
intractable issues the Mennonite Church has faced. Official church documents
clearly call for celibacy on the part of gays and lesbians while also
calling the church to repent of its judgmental attitudes and to
remain in loving dialogue as we continue to study the Bible on this issue.
These calls are in some tension with each other. Meanwhile, loving dialogue on
this issue is rare in the Mennonite Church even though the Purdue and Saskatoon statements
call for it. May God have mercy on us! I believe that individual church members
must recognize and honor the authority of church discernment (Matthew 18:15-20)
even as the church humbly admits its limited capacity to understand God’s will
on this side of heaven.
Article 19 in the Confession of Faith in Mennonite
Perspective says:
We believe that God intends marriage to be a covenant between one man and one woman for life. Christian marriage is a mutual relationship in Christ, a covenant made in the context of the church. According to Scripture, right sexual union takes place only within the marriage relationship. Marriage is meant for sexual intimacy, companionship, and the birth and nurture of children.
I
take seriously and support the Purdue and Saskatoon statements, including their
call for careful Bible study and loving dialogue. In recent years, “loving
dialogue” has sometimes been used as a smokescreen or an excuse for ignoring
the call to celibacy. I do not use it in that way. I think we should pay
careful enough attention to the homosexuality issue to keep reading the Bible
together and that genuine caring for the gays and lesbians among us means that
we must not avoid the issue. I am an advocate for gays and lesbians in that
sense. Despite the difficulty of real loving dialogue in the church, I want to
stand with the church in its ethical discernment, rather than over
against it in its ethical discernment.
The
church has benefited little from the efforts of both extremist conservatives
and of extremist liberals in this area in recent years. Some conservatives have
wrongly (in my opinion) blacklisted certain individuals and congregations for
contributing to the dialogue on this issue, and some liberals have wrongly (in
my opinion) taken too lightly the discernment of the church in calling for
celibacy on the part of gays and lesbians. Furthermore, many have confused the
ethical agenda (the task of making moral judgments) with the pastoral agenda
(responding redemptively to gays and lesbians, based on such moral judgments).
I
continue to hope in the Lord that God will yet bring healing to the church on
this issue. God cannot have been glorified by the blood-letting we have seen. I
am unwilling to allow reactionaries -- whether conservative or liberal -- to
set the tone or the rules by which the matter is discussed. The church cannot
afford either withdrawal or fear-mongering. I trust the grace of God and of the
church to protect those who truly wish to know the mind of Christ on this
matter from the attacks of others. There is admittedly little room for naďveté
on this matter. But the church cannot allow the discussion on this matter be
hijacked by individuals who are driven by fear, insecurity, or a will to power.
I
offer this page as a resource intended to build up the church and assist it in
the ongoing loving dialogue to which we committed ourselves in 1986 and 1987.
Despite
many unanswered questions about homosexuality, several points do seem
reasonably clear. It seems to me that the official documents of the General Conference Mennonite
Church (Saskatoon 1986) and of the Mennonite Church (Purdue
1987) agree explicitly or implicitly about the following points:
1. There
is a difference between homosexuality as an orientation and
homosexuality as a lifestyle. Homosexuality as an orientation is
not and cannot be wrong -- it just is; at issue is whether gays and lesbians
should be celibate or may express their sexuality within a loving, committed
relationship. The existence, integrity, or usefulness of this theoretical distinction
has been increasingly challenged in the last decade. In my opinion, if this
distinction should ultimately prove to be without merit, then the only options
of integrity the church has are (1) to deny the existence of same-gender
attraction or (2) to bless it.
2. Gays
and lesbians deserve the same love and respect as heterosexuals do, and that
means listening and loving before passing judgment; gay-bashing in word or deed
is clearly wrong for anyone who wishes to identify with Jesus;
3. Although
related, ethical discernment and pastoral care are separate issues: Christians
need to consider the ethical propriety of homosexual marriages so that they can
know how to be redemptive. While it may be true that one should hate the
sin and love the sinner, such a statement does not contribute much to ethical
discernment in the church. Neither does the recognition that we are all sinners.
Neither of these “answers” recognizes the need for careful ethical discernment
on the issue -- for listening to the mind of Christ or helping each other grow
in Christ.
4. Christian
ethics is for Christians: ethical discernment and discipling (based on biblical
principles) are appropriate primarily among people who claim to follow Jesus.
It doesn’t make much sense to ask, “What is God’s will for people who have
chosen not to submit to God’s will?”
5. Such
ethical discernment properly belongs with the Christian community as a whole,
not the Christian individual by himself or herself. Twenty-first-century North
America is a difficult place to temper individualism with healthy community
perspectives.
6. Straight
Christians should welcome the help of both (a) gays and lesbians; and (b)
social scientists in addressing this issue, even though Christians cannot give
to others their responsibility for discerning God’s will in light of Scripture,
tradition, and science.
Although
the Bible has little to say about homosexuality, the following passages may
pertain.
|
Passage |
Considerations
suggesting that God does not bless homosexual unions |
Considerations
suggesting that God does bless homosexual unions |
|
Genesis 19 The two angels came to |
In later biblical tradition, |
The
inhabitants of Sodom displayed a despicable form of sexual immorality. Nevertheless,
this passage cannot be construed as condemning loving, committed, monogamous
homosexual relationships. The sin displayed in this story is the sin of homosexual
(gang) rape, possessive lust, and sexual abuse. Homosexuality itself is not
the focus of these cities’ later notoriety within the biblical tradition --
at least not in all cases (see the passages listed in the middle column).
This is aptly demonstrated in Ezekiel 16:49: “This was the guilt of your
sister To use Genesis 19 as a means to condemn homosexuality makes
as little sense as using 2 Sam. 13 as a means to condemn heterosexuality. |
|
Leviticus 18 19You shall not
approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual
uncleanness. 20You shall not have sexual relations with your
kinsman’s wife, and defile yourself with her. 21You shall not give
any of your offspring to sacrifice them to Molech, and so profane the name of
your God: I am the LORD. 22You shall not lie with a male as with a
woman; it is an abomination. 23You shall not have sexual relations
with any animal and defile yourself with it, nor shall any woman give herself
to an animal to have sexual relations with it: it is perversion. |
This passage says that homosexual intercourse is an
abomination and a perversion -- a perversion as bad as bestiality, or having
sex with a woman while she’s having her period, or child sacrifice, or
adultery. There is no passage in the Bible that is clearer than, “You shall
not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” This is a direct
commandment prohibiting homosexual unions. This passage clearly associates
homosexuality with perversion, including committed, loving same-sex
relationships. Any “face-value” reading of the Bible must admit that
Leviticus 18:22 prohibits sexual intercourse between men. |
Loving, committed relationships are not in view here. The author
is addressing the sin of having sex for its own sake (i.e., using another
person, or animal, to meet one’s own selfish sexual needs). The context
also makes clear that these are purity regulations designed to keep holy |
|
Leviticus 20 10If a man
commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the
adulteress shall be put to death. 11The man who lies with his father’s
wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall be put to
death; their blood is upon them. 12If a man lies with his
daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; they have committed perversion,
their blood is upon them. 13If a man lies with a male as with a
woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to
death; their blood is upon them. 14If a man takes a wife and her
mother also, it is depravity; they shall be burned to death, both he and
they, that there may be no depravity among you. 15If a man has
sexual relations with an animal, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill
the animal. 16If a woman approaches any animal and has sexual
relations with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall be put
to death, their blood is upon them. |
Lev. 20:13 says that homosexual intercourse is an
abomination worthy of the death penalty for both partners. Such a thing is as
bad as adultery, or having sex with one’s stepmother, or having sex with
one’s daughter-in-law, or being married to a woman and that woman’s mother at
the same time, or having sex with an animal. Even though the passage suggests
that homosexuals should be killed -- something the church today should not do
-- the passage clearly calls homosexual intercourse an abomination and that
persons who engage in such acts must be held accountable for his actions. |
The same considerations apply here as those above. A literal
interpretation of this passage would require the death penalty for homosexual
intercourse! Does the church wish seriously to propose this? On what basis do
we answer this? According to the interpretation to the left, this passage
could be taken to imply that other, more “natural” forms of bigamy or
polygamy are okay. Within the Hebrew Bible itself we see a debate about
purity issues in sexual or biological terms. Deut. 23:1-3 says, “No one whose
testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the
assembly of the LORD. Those born of an illicit union shall not be
admitted.... Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be
admitted.... No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted.... Even to the tenth
generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of
the LORD.” However, see also Ruth 4:17 and Isa. 56:4-5 for differing perspectives.
The point is that the Levitical prohibitions against homosexual intercourse
fit squarely in the same Old Testament purity concern that Deut. 23:1-8 does
and that Jesus condemns in the New Testament. |
|
Judges 19 16Then at
evening there was an old man coming from his work in the field. The man was
from the hill country of Ephraim, and he was residing in Gibeah. (The people
of the place were Benjaminites.) 17When the old man looked up and
saw the wayfarer in the open square of the city, he said, “Where are you
going and where do you come from?” 18He answered him, “We are
passing from 22While they
were enjoying themselves, the men of the city, a perverse lot, surrounded the
house, and started pounding on the door. They said to the old man, the master
of the house, “Bring out the man who came into your house, so that we may
have intercourse with him.” 23And the man, the master of the
house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my brothers, do not act so
wickedly. Since this man is my guest, do not do this vile thing. 24Here
are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish
them and do whatever you want to them; but against this man do not do such a
vile thing.” 25But the men would not listen to him. So the man
seized his concubine, and put her out to them. They wantonly raped her, and
abused her all through the night until the morning. And as the dawn began to
break, they let her go. 26As morning appeared, the woman came and
fell down at the door of the man’s house where her master was, until it was
light. 27In the morning her master got up,
opened the doors of the house, and when he went out to go on his way, there
was his concubine lying at the door of the house, with her hands on the threshold.
28”Get up,” he said to her, “we are going.” But there was no
answer. Then he put her on the donkey; and the man set out for his home. 29When
he had entered his house, he took a knife, and grasping his concubine he cut
her into twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent her throughout all the |
As with the story of |
As with the story of Sodom and Gomorra above, this
story has nothing to do with whether loving, committed monogamous homosexual
or lesbian relationships are blessed by God, but rather with the perversity
of gang rape, wanton lust, and (even worse, in that society), the sin of
inhospitality. As in the story of |
|
1 Samuel 18 1When David
had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of
David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.2Saul took him
[David] that day and would not let him return to his father’s house.3Then
Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. 4Jonathan
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. 1 Samuel 20 17Thus Jonathan
made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “May the LORD seek out the
enemies of David.” 18 Jonathan made David swear again by his love
for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life. ... 41As 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. 2 Samuel 1 25How the
mighty have fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan lies slain upon your
high places.26I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the
love of women. |
David’s relationship with Jonathan was clearly a
very special and close relationship. Although 2 Samuel 1:26 compares the love
David had for Jonathan with the love between a man and a woman, nothing is
said explicitly about whether this love was sexual or whether they expressed
their love in sexually explicit ways. It may be that we see evidence here of
a different social ordering of relationships in Hebrew society than we we
know today. How many straight men today would be willing to use this sort of
“love-explicit” language toward one another? There is no evidence that David
and Jonathan’s relationship should be or can be “sexualized.” Their love for
each other was deep -- but innocent. It is common in North
America to sexualize relationships. In other cultures men may occasionally
walk about holding hands as an indication of their affection and trust in
each other without any implication of sexual or romantic love. If North
Americans see a romantic or sexual relationship in the relationship between
David and Jonathan, it is due more to society’s influence than to the actual
relationship between David and Jonathan. If modern readers see “sexual
relationship” in this story, it is because they have sexual things on their
mind. |
David’s relationship with
Jonathan was clearly a very special and close relationship. In fact, this is
one of the greatest love stories in the Bible. 2 Samuel 1:26 explicitly
compares the love David had for Jonathan with the love between a man and a woman.
Although nothing is said about whether this love was expressed in sexually explicit
ways, it is clear that there was an intimacy and an emotional investment
between the two that went beyond typical friendship. They loved each other so
much that they made a “covenant” with each other (1Sam. 18:3). Jonathan even
did what was common to most eastern Mediterranean love affairs: he gave David
gifts (1 Sam. 18:4). As The Message puts it, “Jonathan, out of his
deep love for David, made a covenant with him. He formalized it with solemn
gifts: his own royal robe and weapons: armor, sword, bow, and belt.” When Jonathan
died, David not only called Jonathan’s love more wonderful than the love of
women, he also called Jonathan “beloved” (twice) and “lovely” (2 Sam. 1:23,
26). If modern readers do not see “sexual relationship” in this story, it is
because they cannot accept the plain implications of the story itself. If David and Jonathan’s relationship was sexual, that may explain
Saul’s words when he reacted in outrage, “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?”
(1 Sam. 20:30). Nowhere in the Bible do we find such strong language
celebrating the love between persons of the same gender. As the Human Sexuality in the
Christian Life study guide makes clear, we are sexual beings. Thus,
this relationship had sexual overtones even if David and Jonathan did not
engage in certain kinds of sexual activity with each other. Nevertheless,
“sexual activity” is not important here; what is important is that David and
Jonathan had a deeply satisfying and intimate love for each other that is
explicitly compared to the love experienced between a man and a woman. At no
point does the text imply that this love was improper or that God disapproved
of it. |
|
[Jesus said nothing about gays,
lesbians, or homosexuality as such.] |
The most natural interpretation of Jesus’ silence
on the matter is that Jesus simply accepted the prevailing Jewish convictions
of his day and disapproved of homosexual relationships. In Jewish tradition,
homosexuality was not tolerated. |
Either Jesus implicitly approved of homosexual relationships, but
later church tradition did not know this or suppressed that memory, or he did
not consider the issue as important as some other issues, such as the role of
money in people’s lives. In any case, one cannot “argue from silence” to
suggest that Jesus condemned homosexuality. |
|
Matthew 18 15“If another member of the church sins against you,
go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member
listens to you, you have regained that one. 16But if you are not
listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be
confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If the
member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender
refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and
a tax collector. 18Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth
will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in
heaven. 19Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth
about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For
where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” |
Although this text does not deal with human
sexuality, it does deal with the matter of how the church should deal with
loosing and binding -- the process of discipling brothers and sisters in the
church, which inevitably entails some discernment about right and wrong within
the church. While it places congregational discernment squarely in the
context of discipleship, thus suggesting that the church’s authority is
limited in both time and space, it does imply that God honors and blesses the
discernment process in a radical way. Thus, the church’s responsibility to
hear the voice of the Spirit in the process of ethical discernment is on the
highest order. Even more radically, the text suggests that God will honor the
discernment process of the church even if it should make a decision that in
another time or place will be deemed to have been the “wrong” decision. In the face of a liberal
and relativistic society that accepts no absolutes, this passage makes it
clear that it is the responsibility of the church to engage in church discipline
-- not for the sake of the purity of the church, but for the sake of
the calling of the church. |
This text clearly reflects a high view of the church. Even if it
does suggest that God might somehow honor a “wrong” or flawed discernment
process, the church must not yield to the temptation to speak too quickly or
easily for God. It is precisely because God honors the discernment process of
the church that the church must be very slow and cautious to make
pronouncements about God’s will about controversial issues. Furthermore, some
room must be made for the courageous individual who is willing to take a stand
against a corrupt church -- whether that be a more conservative individual
willing to take a stand against a more liberal church, or a more liberal
individual willing to take a stand against a more conservative church. In
other words, Matthew 18:15-20 simply does not help with or skirt the responsibility
to take a long and careful approach to ethical discernment in the church. On
the contrary, it requires it. |
|
Matthew 19 3Some
Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to
divorce his wife for any cause?” 4He answered, “Have you not read
that the one who made them at the beginning `made them male and female,’ 5and
said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined
to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6So they are no
longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one
separate.” 7They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to
give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8He said to
them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to
divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I
say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries
another commits adultery.” 10His disciples
said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to
marry.” 11But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this
teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12For there are
eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made
eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for
the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” |
In Jesus’ teaching about marriage and divorce, he
consistently emphasizes the permanence of the marriage covenant. His
disciples’ reaction show that Jesus’ approach requires the kind of commitment
that empowered women in that society to such an extent that men may have
second thoughts about getting married at all. Thus, Jesus is saying that our sexual
identity is never fully determinative of “who we are.” Whether we are
straight or gay, we can be quite healthy spiritually and emotionally without
sexual self-expression of the genital variety. Jesus is therefore calling for
celibacy as an honorable (perhaps the honorable?) option for both
heterosexuals and homosexuals. In any case, this passage seems to condemn
contemporary society’s fixation with sexuality or the suggestion that one
cannot be fulfilled or happy unless one is expressing oneself in a sexual
relationship. The traditional Catholic condemnation of birth control fits
well with the argument that since gays and lesbians cannot procreate
naturally, God must not accept such relationships as legitimate. A possible paraphrase of v. 12: “Some
people have no choice about expressing their sexuality genitally; for some
that choice has been taken away by other people; and still others have chosen
to refrain from such ‘fulfillment’ for the sake of God’s reign.” |
Jesus’ quotation of the “one flesh” statement from Genesis shows
that the significance of marriage in God’s plan has more to do with love and
the lasting nature of the marriage covenant itself than it does with sexual
fulfillment or the “natural” biological “fit” of heterosexual intercourse. Protestants emphasize
that the main purpose of sexual intercourse within marriage is the expression
of mutual love, regardless of actual or potential procreation. Consistent
with this emphasis is the use of birth control and the approval of homosexual
intercourse (within a covenanted relationship) as an expression of love untied
to procreation. Thus, the traditional Protestant acceptance of birth control
fits with the argument that sexuality is blessed by God totally apart from
whether it results in -- or could result in -- offspring. A possible
paraphrase of v. 12: “Some people have no choice about expressing their
sexuality genitally; for some that choice has been taken away by other people; and still others have chosen
to refrain from such ‘fulfillment’ for the sake of God’s reign.” |
|
Acts 10 9About noon
the next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter
went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something
to eat; and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He
saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being
lowered to the ground by its four corners. 12In it were all kinds
of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. 13Then
he heard a voice saying, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.” 14But
Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is
profane or unclean.” 15The voice said to him again, a second time,
“What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” 16This
happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven. 17Now while
Peter was greatly puzzled about what to make of the vision that he had seen,
suddenly the men sent by Cornelius appeared. They were asking for Simon’s
house and were standing by the gate. 18They called out to ask whether
Simon, who was called Peter, was staying there. 19While Peter was
still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Look, three men are
searching for you. 20Now get up, go down, and go with them without
hesitation; for I have sent them.” |
This passage about the opening of the Gentile
mission has nothing to do with purity regarding sexual issues. That is, while
it seems designed to pull down certain kinds of barriers between people
groups based on purity issues, it does not imply that sexual concerns
specifically qualify as a “purity” issue that can now be safely ignored. In
fact, there is plenty of evidence from elsewhere in the New Testament that
responsible choices are still necessary in the area of our sexuality despite
the freedom we have in Christ (cf. Matt. 15:19; Acts 15:20,29; 21:25; 1 Cor.
5; 6:18; 7:2; 10:8; 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Jude 7). |
This passage is about the barriers that divide people based on
“purity” issues. Jesus himself was severely condemned by his contemporaries
for not abiding by the societal protocols that were based on purity issues
(Luke 7:31-50; Mark 7:1-23). Furthermore, Jesus seemed particularly sensitive
to the ways in which people concerned about sexual purity sometimes build
unjust barriers between people in a subtly idolatrous attempt to justify themselves.
Such a temptation to point the finger at the “other” usually does not reflect
God’s love (cf. John 7:53-8:11). Jesus is just as concerned about this kind
of hard-heartedness as he is about the sexual activity in question. In this case, it took
an “act of God” to get Peter to reconsider what he always knew to be true.
Here God commands Peter to reconsider something that he had believed deeply
for all of his life: that purity was central to God’s concern and that for
him to be accepted by God, he must avoid contact with Gentiles. This was not
an easy lesson for Peter to learn, but God was patient. This may not be an easy
lesson for today’s church to learn, but perhaps God will be patient with us
too. This passage is
significant because it represents a Spirit-inspired paradigm-changing event
that almost single-handedly reinterprets long-held convictions about the will
of God clearly expressed in the Bible. |
|
Romans 1 18For the wrath
of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of
those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19For what can
be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20Ever
since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature,
invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things
he has made. So they are without excuse; 21for though they knew
God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became
futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22Claiming
to be wise, they became fools; 23and they exchanged the glory of
the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or
four-footed animals or reptiles. 24Therefore God
gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of
their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth
about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the
Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26For this
reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural
intercourse for unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men, giving
up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one
another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons
the due penalty for their error. 28And since
they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind
and to things that should not be done. 29They were filled with
every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder,
strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30slanderers,
God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward
parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32They
know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die -- yet
they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them. |
Here Paul seems to equate homosexuality with
ungodliness, wickedness, and idolatry. This wickedness expresses itself in a
perverse confusion between creation (us) and creator (God). Paul makes no distinction
between abusive or hierarchical homosexuality (e.g., pederasty) and so-called
“loving” homosexuality. This is because Paul sees homosexuality as inherently
exploitative (i.e., it requires an aggressor and a more effeminate partner).
Paul says nothing about loving homosexuality because he denies that such a
thing exists, not because he is unaware of the possibility. In fact, ancient
writings demonstrate that the idea of a homosexual orientation existed in
Paul’s time. The fact that the
term homosexuality as such does not appear in the New Testament says
nothing about its ethical propriety. There simply was no term available
in Greek that referred to homosexuality specifically as a loving, committed
relationship between equals. Because of this, one cannot make much of the
absence of such a term. The proper interpretation of Romans 1 is that Paul is
using homosexuality as such as an example of the “ungodliness and
wickedness” of humanity. |
Paul’s main concern here is the proper relationship between
Creator and creature. The use and abuse of sexuality is one of the symptoms
of such a confusion. Although it may appear to the heterosexual world that
homosexual sex is the prime example of depravity, both homosexual and
heterosexual sex can reflect such a confusion. What Paul condemns here is
“pederasty,” the (homosexual) domination of one person over another --
specifically, that of an older man over a younger boy. This is why Paul
associates such ungodliness with insatiable lust and immorality, not
because he is making a statement about the abusive or exploitative nature of
homosexuality as such. Paul assumes here that homosexual behavior is
something freely chosen, a purposeful violation of the created order. It
appears, therefore, that he is simply unaware of the distinction between
homosexuality as an orientation and as a behavior. In context, Paul is not
condemning the Romans for tolerating homosexuals in their midst, but rather
is using a typical Jewish stereotype about Gentile sexual promiscuity to make
his central point: that all people -- Jew and Gentile alike -- are in
desperate need of God. Paul treats homosexual intercourse not as one of the
“sins” of the Gentiles, but one of the consequences of their root sin:
refusing to let the one true God be their God. Paul apparently knew
nothing about the complexity of homosexuality and the multiple causes of it
and nowhere does Paul show awareness of a loving mutual homosexual
relationship that is not exploitative or abusive. We should refrain from
imposing Paul’s statements about homosexuality directly on our situation today
without taking this into account. Nevertheless,
Paul’s fundamental concerns about homosexuality are as valid
today as ever: whenever homo- or hetero- sexuality expresses
itself as (a) a surrender to one’s own lusts; (b) an ungrateful misappropriation
of God’s creation; or (c) exploitation of another person -- such sexual
activity is morally wrong. |
|
1 Corinthians
6 9Do you not
know that wrongdoers will not inherit the |
There is some evidence that some loving homosexual
relationships begin with or eventually evolve into one in which one partner
is more the aggressor and the other more passive. Thus, Paul’s terms do not
necessarily assume an inherently unloving or unequal partnership. “This is
what some of you used to be” implies that some of the Corinthians had been,
but were no longer, gay or lesbian. This further suggests that homosexual
activity belongs to the unredeemed, pre-Christian, life and that it has no
part in the life of the born-again Christian. This passage admittedly is not
about homosexuality as such, but it is about immorality, of which
homosexuality is an example. |
The two Greek words translated “male prostitutes” and “sodomites”
in v. 9 of the NRSV are malakoi and arsenokoitai. Malakoi means
“effeminate,” “weak,” or “soft” and is the word used of “call-boys” whom older
men (arsenokoitai) took to bed. (The latter term is also the one used
in 1 Tim. 1:10, which appears in another list of vices.) The context here in
1 Cor. is one of heterosexual immorality; homosexuality as such is not
the topic at hand. Paul simply mentions the sort of abusive, exploitative
homosexuality that goes on between young “call-boys” and their customers as
one example of the sort of immorality Christians in |
|
[In summary, the Bible says nothing
explicitly positive about homosexuality, and what it does say is
almost exclusively negative or critical.] |
Since everything the Bible says explicitly about
homosexuality is negative, we should “play it safe” and go with what is
explicit rather than take the “gray areas” too seriously. |
The Bible does not often explicitly address slavery, either, or
the propriety of women in leadership. We rightly condemn slavery today
because we see that the biblical teachings about justice, love, and human
dignity provide a trajectory consistent with the condemnation of slavery. In
a similar way, the trajectories of biblical teaching suggest that we should
accept gays and lesbians as equal partners in the church. “Playing it safe”
is what the conservative slave owners wanted to do … precisely because it
supports the status quo. |
Page
maintained by Loren L. Johns, LJOHNS@AMBS.EDU
Last updated: 20 September 2009.
Copyright ©
1998, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2009 by Dr. Loren L. Johns.
Permission
is hereby granted to reproduce this document for noncommercial educational
purposes, on the condition that the source is cited and acknowledged.
Loren L. Johns is Associate Professor of
New Testament at Associated Mennonite Biblical
Seminary in Elkhart, Indiana.
Disclaimer:This page
reflects the interpretations of Loren L. Johns and does not implicitly or
explicitly represent the official position of the Associated Mennonite Biblical
Seminary. I have prepared this page as a sort of study guide to enable and
assist the discernment and dialogue called for in the Mennonite Church
documents. As a Christian educator who strongly believes in the importance of
dialogue on critical issues -- a dialogue marked by serious consideration of
marginalized voices, by prayer, by patience, by listening, by respect -- I
offer this page as a resource for study and consideration of these issues. I
have tried to represent fairly some of the interpretations of both sides and to
be clear where clarity is warranted. I hope you find it helpful. If you have
any questions or comments about this page, please address them via email to Loren L. Johns. Thank you.