My first attempt at reconciling my faith with homosexuality. Crude research, but it formed the basis for my beliefs and led me to the ability to be both gay and Christian at the same time.
The Bible and Homosexuality -- Read it, you'll be enlightened
By Casey Wooley
Hey everyone,
After reading a very disheartening post from my brother concerning my homosexual orientation that I know I had no choice in, I needed to do some research to figure some stuff out. I've been a Christian since I was twelve years old and accepted Jesus Christ into my heart. I've taught Sunday School, Children's Church, VBS, and even delievered a message on the pulplit one Youth Sunday. The problem that has been prevalent in my life, although hidden, have been the attraction I have for other men. I dismissed these attractions as unnatural and sinful because of what I was taught, and what I was teaching others. I equated homosexuality as a sin, like murder, until I realize that this was something that was always there. And, during my junior year of college I finally told somebody, and then told somebody else, and slowly but sure I was able to be me.
But, as I've told my family, the people I care about most in my life are the ones who are struggling with this characteristic of my life the most. Especially my brother. It hurts me not to be able to share my glories with him, my happiness, and my sadness--all because he cannot accept something that he has absolutely no control over. I understand his position, because I was there, I lived it. I know what the Bible has to say about homosexuality; I've read every passage, studied, researched, and understand it. I know that by "church" standards, to be gay is to be a sin. But, that's just it, it's by church standards and nothing else. Then I stumbled across some pretty convincing argument--something that reaffirmed what I believed but couldn't voice myself. The following is taken from http://christianlesbians.com/articles/biblehomosexuality.php, and is a synopsis of several articles that seek to explain the various passages in the Bible that "condemn" homosexuality.
Because you may not have an open mind, you may choose not to view what I'm trying to say. But I ask, and challenge that if I've been kind enough to consider and live your viewpoint, you can at least consider mine and perhaps see that to be gay is not a sin. To be gay is simply another way to live. It is not a choice I made--I didn't just suddenly choose to let my heterosexuality fly away in the wind, but rather have had these urges, these attractions, these feelings my entire life. I want to love another man; I want to share life's up's and down's with this person, whoever it may be, and that, in reality has nothing to do with anybody else in my life. Thankfully most of the people close to me have accepted and have encouraged my life, and encouraged the person I finally have become and admitted to myself. But those select few people--my family--my mom, my dad, and my brother--have not. While my dad is somewhat supportive and taking on the role of "holding the family together," I know it still bothers him. I just can't understand how somebody cannot understand that it's not something I'm doing to hurt them, to embarass or humilate the family. For it's not something to be considered humilating.
Ryan, if you can't understand that, I'm sorry. I don't know what else I can say to you. I'm not going to change simply because you have relgious convictions that really are not grounded in anything more than a church telling you something that's not true. I've gone to the same church that you've gone to for the same amount of time, and the beleifs that you have are a mismatch of beliefs from God, from the Bible, from the Pastor, and from others in the church. That's what happens. I've not lost my faith in God, and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I will find my home in Heaven when I take my last breath on earth here. So, why you can't be happy for me, is beyond any rationale that I can possibly understand. If you were hurt, I'd be there in a second. I've welcomed Michelle back into my life because you love her, despite any reservations I may have about things that she did to you in your past. I've chosen not to judge her, because it's not my place to judge. Yet, in your zeal to stop me from being gay, you're judging me and calling me something that I'm not.
Ryan, I long for the days ten years from now when you've got kids and and a house, and a hotrod in the garage and me and whoever it may be (Andy or somebody else) can come over and have a barbeque with you without fear of judgement or ridicule. Obviously some laws have to change before that can happen, but I still want a family, I still want a life that is normal (whatever normal may be). But, until you can accept me for me, that life seems to be put on hold. The entire time I've sat here writing this, I've trembled for fear that you will not like what you hear, and yell and scream and tell me that you'll never accept me.
I've realized that the only person I can control in my life is me--not you, not my friends, not mom, not dad. I am responsible ONLY for my actions, and at this point, this action, this trait of mine doesn't deem any appropriate responsibility except to say that I have the right to be me, regardless of how you feel or how you stand. I feel you need to do the same thing, take responsibility for your own actions and stop trying to change mine. Even your own best friend Chris gave me a strong arm of support when he found out and didn't understand why you won't even talk to him about it. But, at this point, it's not my concern. I ask that you read the summaries that I post here, and see if they make any sense, because they have to me.
These article offer some historical context into how the Bible was written and how some of the words condemning homsexuality are actually mistranslated. In other ways, they offer that if we're going to take everything the Bible says literally, then we need to immediately let women stop being religous leaders, stop letting men have long hair, stop eating pork on Fridays, and stop allowing men and women to sleep together during a woman's menstrual cycle. It makes sense. I can see your counterargument already brewing, that it's from Satan, that I can find anything that twists or contorts the Bible in any way that I want to see fit to live my lifestyle. Well, I give the same argument back, that it's possible to take anything from the Bible, and look at it however works for you too. And, if that's the case, how are we suppose to know that the Bible is really infallable? I'll leave that question unanswered.
Here are the articles, please enjoy:
THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSISTENCY
I realize from my own encounters that when it comes to having discussions on homosexuality with conservative Christians, particularly those among our circle of family, friends, and church, most of the information covered above will be discounted. After all, the argument goes, "The words are clear and you're just trying to complicate things to justify homosexuality. The Bible says 'A man will not lie with another man as with a woman.' That's clearly about homosexuality and you're deceiving yourself to think otherwise."
Okay then, let's suspend everything already discussed and assume for a moment that yes, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 are clear-cut prohibitions against all homosexual relationships. The issue at this point becomes much more simple and much more difficult to answer. If we are to bring these passages into our current setting, putting aside the reasons why they were put in place originally and what type of worldview on gender and sexuality served as the basis for their establishment, then the only way we can remain consistent as Christians in the treatment of the Biblical text is to do the same with all the surrounding passages. To carry one prohibition across the centuries requires that we carry all the prohibitions along with it. This raises a problem for many Christians since most ignore the prohibitions against eating pork or shelled fish, shaving their hair near the temples, not marking their bodies with a tattoo, not touching a pigskin, wearing blended fabrics or having sexual relations between a husband and wife during menstruation among a long laundry list of other requirements and prohibitions.
Not only do we need to be consistent in treating all the law equally but we need to be consistent in applying the prescribed penalty for disobedience to the law. There exists a radical fringe of anti-gay people who call for the "death of homosexuals." Most Christians, even those who oppose homosexuality, are appalled by their violent rhetoric and yet, to truly honor the mandate of Leviticus concerning this prohibition, the radical fringe, no matter how offensive their position, are arguing for consistency in obeying all the law. How can the church decide the prohibition is in place and yet not the penalty for its violation? If they insist that this passage is still in place within our world then so must the penalty be, including death for those who engage in homosexuality as well as stoning for children who curse their parents..
A simple reality is that as Christians the Bible is the basis for our personal sexual ethics and yet there are vast differences between our sexual ethics and those of the Bible. In his article "Homosexuality and the Bible" in Homosexuality and the Christian Faith, Walter Wink highlights the inconsistencies in our use of the Bible as being authoritative to our lives.
"Most modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting incest (Note: The Bible actually offers no rejection or mention of father-daughter incest, mainly because in antiquity the father owned the daughter as one owns property), rape, adultery, and intercourse with animals. But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned or discouraged the following behaviors which we generally allow: intercourse during menstruation, celibacy (some texts), exogamy (marriage with non-Israelites), naming sexual organs, nudity (under certain conditions), masturbation (some Christians still condemn this) and birth control. The Bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean which most of us do not. Likewise, the Bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn or have discontinued: prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage, treatment of women as property, and very early marriage (ages 11-13 for the girl). The Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it."
"Why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices. Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary." (Homosexuality and the Christian Faith, page 43) The full article, Homosexuality and the Bible, is available to read online.
Despite the claims of many Christians, there seems to be a tendency to pick and choose from Scriptural law, those which most fit with our existing belief system on what is right and what is wrong sexually.
In conclusion, how does the Christian Testament refer to the Law? Jesus declared he hadn't come to do away with a portion of the Law but to fulfill all the Law (Matthew 5:17-18). Paul said that "Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to all who believe" (Romans 10:4) and he tells us that we have been released from the Law and are dead to that which had us bound (Romans 7:6). Finally, in a passage familiar to all of us we read an exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees where they asked: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:36-40). The question left to ask then is does the love between a gay or lesbian couple violate the first and greatest commandment?
ACCORDING TO PAUL
"I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles. I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome. I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith.' The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?"
Romans I
In conservative Christian circles questioning Paul is tantamount to questioning God or Jesus and while I believe Paul was a man after God's heart and had clearly gone through a life-transforming experience on the road to Damascus, I'm concerned by our tendency to avoid any critical examination of some of Paul's teaching, even though Paul himself occasionally attributes his teaching to his personal views rather than that which comes from Jesus (1 Corinthians 7:6). Can I be so bold as to say that there's about three thousand miles of difference between questioning Paul's theology on certain points and questioning God or does that earn me the label of heretic? If so, I gladly wear it.
When speaking of women, Paul clearly reflects the culture of his time. "Women are to be silent in the church...for it is a shame for a woman to speak in church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35), and women are to dress in modest apparel, avoiding " braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment (I Timothy 2:9). If Paul's teaching is the word of God and as relevant today as it was within the ancient world then what are we to do with conservative Christian female evangelists and pastors like Joyce Meyers or Jan Crouch? How is it that in many Christian circles going to church is an occasion to dress up in one's finest clothing including expensive jewelry and designer clothing? Somehow Evangelical Christians have managed to ignore these passages and yet cling to Paul's clearly negative message concerning homoeroticism, most certainly influenced by Pauls' exposure to negative same-sex activities in the ancient world and apply it across the board to gays and lesbians in our current world. As I mentioned in my treatment of Leviticus, I'm concerned by the obvious lack of consistency by many Christians in their treatment of Biblical teaching whether in the Hebrew or Christian Testaments. A continual charge made toward gay and lesbian Christians is that they avoid dealing with the passages that condemn same-sex attraction and yet, even if this were true, is the charge any less toward those who highlight the negative comments regarding homoeroticism while ignoring passages that would affect their
Paul connected same-sex eroticism with idolatry.
The Penalty: God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. (verses 28b-31)
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (verses 26-27)
From what we've already discussed, both here and with the passages from Leviticus, we have certain things we understand that seem to be very much in keeping with the words of Paul in Romans 1:26-27. We also need to be honest enough to admit that we don't know exactly what Paul might have meant or what Paul might have thought concerning our current day understanding of homosexuality. It seems clear that in verses 26-27 Paul has a negative view of homoeroticism and while we can't know with any precision what Paul meant, we can make several general assumptions:
Unnatural (para physin) is better understood as that which is out of the ordinary or beyond the ordinary rather than as perversion.
Sex was for the purpose of procreation and had to include a dominant partner (male) and a passive partner (female). Anything that didn't meet that normative form was para physin.
One of the men in a same-sex encounter would dishonor himself by assuming the role of the passive partner and lowering his status to that of a woman. The other man brought dishonor on himself by allowing his kinsman to assume the role of the passive partner.
Paul, as his contemporaries, saw all passions as uncontrolled and negative. As a result passion was always dishonorable and would obviously result in being consumed by it. The passion that a husband might have for his wife would be seen as equally negative. Paul's not so much interested in condemning homoerotic behavior but on uncontrolled passions and lack of moderation.
In the ancient world there was no understanding of a homosexual orientation or a heterosexual orientation for that matter. Paul saw idolatry as the cause of same-sex eroticism rather than a person's sexual orientation or even a choice. It was a penalty exacted by God on the idolatrous Gentiles.
Unnatural relations for women could refer to any sexual activity where procreation wasn't a possibility. This could include sex during menstruation, anal sex or homoeroticism. Unnatural relationship for women could also refer to any sexual activity that was beyond the ordinary. Because women were expected in every sexual encounter to be the passive partner it would be against nature for a woman to be the aggressor in a heterosexual encounter or to take the dominant role in sex with another woman.
There are those who use this chapter to condemn homosexuality but in doing so they're choosing to emphasize wrongly one portion of a progressive descent into sin by a particular people whose original sin was idolatry. Remember that everything that follows their adulterous practices are a direct result of God giving them up to behaviors that would cause them to dishonor themselves. Their deliberate choice was to practice idolatry but the rest was punishment imposed on them by God.
I would propose that this passage does not speak of gay men and lesbians within our culture but to the Gentile idolaters located in Rome. If anyone uses this passage as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality within our current world then there are several premises that they must hold as true.
Everyone who is gay and lesbian was first an idolater, even those who realized they were homosexual from their earliest youth.
Everyone who is gay or lesbian is that way because God made them to be homosexual. Homosexuality at this point ceases to be either a sexual orientation OR a choice.
Everyone who is gay and lesbian is without faith and hates God, including those who proclaim Jesus as their Savior, whether they are practicing homosexuals or living as celibates within the church community.
For those of you who are gay and lesbian and continue to struggle with this passage I'd encourage you to consider these three points explicitly stated in Romans One and ask yourself some questions to see if Paul is referring to you in this writing.
Did you practice idolatry prior to your first awareness of your homosexuality?
Do you remember a fixed moment in time when you felt your heterosexuality (an exclusive attraction to the opposite sex) replaced with homosexuality (an exclusive attraction to the same sex)?
Are you void of all faith and filled with hate for God? Are you filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, and malice? How about envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, gossip, slanderer, insolent, haughty and boastfulness? Are you an inventor of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless and ruthless?
Would you describe your relationship with the person you love as centered solely in uncontrolled passions and lust?
For this passage to be speaking of all gays and lesbians and more specifically of you, you have to be able to answer in the affirmative to every question. If you answer no to any or all of them then perhaps it's time to let go of this passage as being what stands between reconciling your faith and sexuality. While there's a clearly negative word here regarding homoeroticism, it's exclusively a punishment of God for idolaters in Paul's understanding and so remains an empty closet for those of us today who are gay and lesbian and continue to worship God and God alone.
Words Matter: 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 and 1 Timothy 1: 9-10
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakoi), nor abusers of themselves (arsenokoitai) with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 6: 9-10
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai), for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."
1 Timothy 1: 9-10
If the word "homosexual" appears in your Bible in either of these passages then you're holding a version that was written after 1946, since the word "homosexual" didn't even reach common usage until the late 1800's. Prior to the 1946 Edition of the Revised Standard Version, the words that "homosexual" has replaced in many modern versions have included "boy prostitutes, effeminate, those who make women of themselves, sissies, catamites, the self-indulgent, sodomites, lewd persons, male prostitutes, and the unchaste." In What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, Daniel Helminiak offers that "until the Reformation in the 16th Century and in Roman Catholicism until the 20th Century, the word malakoi was thought to mean "masturbators." Among the early Greek-speaking Christian theologians who condemned homosexuality the words malakoi and arsenokoitai were never used. John Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.) preached in Greek against homosexuality and like others including Clement of Alexandra, never used these words, not even was the issue of homosexuals mentioned when he preached on these two passages. (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, pages 335-353.)
What am I saying here? If church tradition is part of what shapes our Christian theology then we have to recognize that church tradition and the understanding of earlier Christian theologians doesn't support the more recent translations that have placed the word "homosexuals" or "practicing homosexuals" within these two passages. At different times within church history there have been varying understandings of these passages and their exact meaning has changed from one generation to the next, now to the current time when two separate words have been collapsed into one to mean "homosexual." Along with this acknowledgment, it seems both helpful and honest to recognize that what often finds it's way into current biblical interpretation is not a more informed understanding of the biblical text based on years of accumulative knowledge but on imposing our own culture, complete with its prejudices into the interpretative work. What else would explain the shift in meaning and the narrowing of focus in the interpretation of these two passages over the last fifty years?
IT'S ALL GREEK TO ME
Rest assured that I'm no expert in the Greek language. The truth of the matter is there are days when fluent English escapes me. While studying the languages of the Bible are clearly helpful to a richer and more educated understanding of what lies within its pages, it's just as beneficial if you have the heart of an explorer. With that in mind, cast aside the studious burrows etched across your forehead and open your eyes wide to an adventure with words.
The first appearance of the word arsenokoitai in any ancient Greek literature is found in I Corinthians 6:9. While it might have been a word common in Paul's time, it can't be found anywhere else in material dated prior to or current with Paul that has already been discovered. It only begins to make its appearance in literature following Paul. An important tool in discovering the meaning of a word is to trace how it's been used previously but because arsenokoitai is invisible prior to I Corinthians this means of defining the word is missing. The times arsenokoitai is used following Paul seem dependent on Paul's usage of the word. In the Latin Vulgate that follows Paul some 500 years later, Jerome translates it as a male concubine although nothing in the word specifies whether the concubine was involved with a same-sex or opposite-sex individual. What we do know is at the time Paul was writing there were terms common for persons involved in homoeroticism and Paul chose to not use those words but to instead use a word that remains mysterious to us. What this means is that Greek scholars and theologians (among which you and I don't count ourselves) come to arsenokoitai with no previous context for understanding it's meaning and so the best that anyone, whether pro-gay or anti-gay can reason is a guess. In the early work the "New Testament and Homosexuality" Robin Scroggs comes to an understanding of arsenokoitai by looking at the two separate words it combines; arseno (men) and koitai (bed). From this Scroggs concluded that the literal meaning of arsenokoitai was "male bed" which he understood as descriptive of the active male (penetrator) in same-sex intercourse. The problem with this method of interpretation can be seen with examples in English like "lady-killer", "manhole" or "butterfly." You don't arrive at the true meaning of the word "butterfly" by defining the words "butter" and "fly" anymore than it's possible to define the accurate meaning of arsenokoitai by combining "male" and "bed."
malakoi is a word common to the Greek language which means "soft." Jesus uses the word malakoi when speaking of "a man dressed in soft (malakoi) raiment" (Matthew 11:8).
Historically, church tradition has often understood malakoi to imply a moral weakness. In antiquity however, malakoi was sometimes used as a descriptive word of eromenos. If you check back to the discussion on pederasty, you'll be reminded that eromenos was the passive partner in the pederastic relationship between an older mentor and the younger boy or the beloved. It was also used in a much broader sense than exclusive to a homoerotic relationship. malakoi also described those men who had too much sex with women. In ancient Rome, the effeminate looking man often presented himself that way to attract women rather than men because a feminine man would have been a turn off to men. In the ancient world being effeminate including such behavior as bathing frequently, shaving, frequent dancing or laughing, wearing cologne, eating too much or wearing fine undergarments! Effeminate is the best understanding of the word and in its cultural context was threatening to the whole structure of society by crossing the fragile line between man and woman in a world where to be male was to be superior and to be woman was to be intrinsically inferior. While being effeminate might have been deemed a sin in antiquity we would never consider preaching against the "sin of femininity" in a world where men are encouraged to get in touch with their more gentle side and where good hygiene, a pair of silk briefs and Old Spice After Shave would catapult the male populace in most churches into this category.
No comments:
Post a Comment