I'm not a biblical scholar, THIS MAN IS and here are some strong, convincing arguments dissecting Biblical text that rebut Christian Conservative ideology..Use them!
By The Rev. Matthew J. Mardis
Waht does the Bible say about same-sex relationships?
Surprisingly little. I have the sense that many persons visiting this website may feel torn.
On the one hand, one may feel deeply compassionate to the struggles of GLBT individuals, maybe even knowing first-hand the pain of rejection and the agony of life in the closet. On the other hand, one may also be haunted by the sense that the Bible unequivocally and indisputably condemns same-sex
relationships. One feels caught between compassion and loyalty to the Biblical witness. As one who takes the authority of the Bible with the utmost seriousness, I want to challenge the claim that the Bible condemns same sex relationships.
To the contrary, it is my contention that a close and careful consideration of the relevant Biblical texts will lead to the recognition that the Bible
speaks Gospel (i.e. good news!) word to GLBT individuals. To put it bluntly, the Bible
is on their side, and not on the side of those who would place them beyond the reach of the love of God.
OPENING DISCLAIMER
Earlier drafts of this essay have
been met with mixed reviews. The most frequent complaint I have received is that the sort of interpretation I engage in obscures the "plain sense" of Scripture. Interpretation, it has been suggested, muddies the waters and allows
one to wiggle out of Scripture's "obvious" claims. Thus, one earnest correspondent pleaded with me, "Don't interpret at all." Respectfully,
I must decline the invitation not to interpret Scripture. Every reading of Scripture
is an act of interpretation. To claim otherwise is at best naïve, and often disingenuous. It is easy to plead that we "not interpret" when your
interpretation is the accepted one. Since we all interpret Scripture, the question is whether our interpretation is more or less faithful to the
original sense of the text. What many regard as the "plain interpretation" is often no
more than what they have heard all their life, repeated and reinforced until they can no longer hear the text apart from the received
interpretation. Thus, many Christians in the antebellum South regarded slavery as compatible
with the "plain sense" of Scripture, and were horrified by abolitionist "interpretations" of Scripture that seemed to "twist" the "plain
sense." I stand proudly in the tradition of the Protestant Reformers, the abolitionists,
the advocates of women's ordination and all others who have challenged bad
interpretations with better ones. Accordingly, this essay will discuss Hebrew and Greek terms, consider passages in their context and otherwise seek to see the text as clearly as possible. I do not apologize for this. Interpretation is
painstaking work. What I ask of those who disagree with my interpretation is that they engage with me in the text, rather than seek to be excused from hard work by a plea that we "not interpret." We all interpret Scripture, so
let us seek to do so as honestly and rigorously as possible.
A QUESTION OF PRIORITY
In what follows, I intend to take up the assages most often brought forward by those who see same sex relationships as incompatible with Christianity.
Before dealing in individual texts, however, it would be helpful to first address the larger question of the relative prominence (or lack thereof) of same sex relationships as a topic in the Bible. The importance of this question
was brought home to me by Professor Beverly Gaventa of Princeton Theological Seminary, who once observed in a lecture that there are probably many people who, having never read the Bible, suppose it to be redolent of page
after page of harsh judgments against same relations. Even a cursory reading of the Bible
will reveal this to not be the case. Indeed, what will instead most likely emerge is the surprising recognition that the Bible has relatively little to say on the subject of same sex relationships. The perception that the
Bible is preoccupied with judgment of GLBT lifestyles is simply false. It seems to me
that those of us who know better must work to correct this perception. So long
as it stands, vicious, hateful individuals like Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church will persist in the arrogant presumption that the Bible endorses their hatred. What's worse, many GLBT persons will think the same, and will not
know that the Bible is good news for them. In truth, the Bible devotes relatively little attention to questions about sex and quite a bit of attention to questions of economic and social justice. To insist upon the centrality of
sexual morality is to invert and distort the priorities of the Bible. A comparison with attitudes toward poverty and riches is instructive. Jesus spoke more often and more thoroughly about wealth than about any other topic. At the very announcement of Jesus' conception, Mary rejoiced that God would
"fill the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty" (Luke 1:53). It is
difficult, said Jesus, for the rich to enter the kingdom of God (Matthew 10:25). To a rich young ruler, Christ urged self-sacrificial giving to
the poor in order to attain perfection (Luke 18:23). Jesus pronounced woes upon the rich
(Luke 6:24), and predicted that at the final judgment God would reckon with our treatment of "the least of these" (Matthew 25:31-46). Curiously, those who insist that they are led to condemn same sex relationships out of a
concern for the literal sense of Scripture tend to display a profound lack of concern for
the literal sense of Jesus' teaching about wealth. Conservative Christians in
this country, as loyal supporters of the political right wing, have cheerfully
acquiesced to the most exploitative and materialistic society in world history.
As the Bible devotes enormous time and space to the subject of wealth and poverty, those who will not heed the literal sense of this significant and well-attested aspect of Biblical morality stand on dubious ground when appealing to the (allegedly)literal sense of a mere handful of texts that speak negatively of same sex relationships. Again, any moral system that does not place the accent where the Bible does can hardly claim to be Biblical morality.
I will now turn my attention to those passages most often trotted out by opponents of GLBT persons in the church. In discussing these issues, it is vital that the Biblical witness be allowed to speak for itself.
GENESIS 1-2
As the bumper sticker reminds us all, God reated Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. The stories of Creation are often referenced as proof of God's
intention for men and women to live in the married state. In theology this is what we
call an appeal to natural law -the belief that creation has certain orders that reflect the Creator's will for the creatures. However, if this passage becomes a basis for ethical/normative teaching, it proves far too much. Roman Catholics appeal to the very same natural law argument to rule artificial methods
of contraception out of bounds. If, after all, the Creator intends heterosexual intercourse for reproductive purposes to be the only lawful use of sex, any sexual act that cannot result in the possibility of offspring is forbidden. Thus, birth control, oral sex, masturbation all fall by the way side. Protestants typically respond to the Catholic argument by asserting that sex
serves other purposes besides reproduction, so that sexual acts that will not produce offspring are acceptable. If we grant this point--and virtually all Protestants do--we are no longer taking our moral bearings on questions
about sex from the stories of Genesis 1-2. As an aside, it is worth noting that this
discussion underscores a basic principle of Biblical interpretation: Stories
are not a sound basis for constructing morality. This can be seen from a consideration of the function of a story. A story intends to narrate
something supposed to have happened: creation, or Joseph bringing his family to Egypt, or
whatever. To take a text that intends to recount a story and treat it as a source of ethical principles is to disregard the text's own intent. It is, to take the argument one step forward, to distort the literal sense. All
that Genesis 1-2 does is recount "what happened" when God created the world. To bring questions to theses stories that they themselves do not address (e.g., "Are same sex relationships sinful?") is to fail as a responsible
interpreter of the Bible.
GENESIS 19
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is a text that figures prominently in these discussions, and that is unfortunate. To make the story into a condemnation of same sex relationships is to miss two critical points. First, what is described in Genesis 19 is not consensual sex
between adults; it is rape. God is never in favor of rape, no matter who is doing it to
whom. Second, the prophetic tradition of Israel did not remember Sodom and Gomorrah for their alleged sexual perversion, but rather for their
unjust treatment of the poor. God says "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy" (Ezekiel 16:49). Once again, God is far more concerned with matters of economic and social justice than about what occurs in
the bedroom. In a society also marked by pride, excess food, prosperous ease and scandalous neglect of the poor, to twist Sodom and Gomorrah into an anti-GLBT story is not only misguided; it is irresponsible.
LEVITCUS 18:22,20:13
Leviticus 18:22 reads, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Leviticus 18:19, just three verses before, reads, "You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness." And herein we find a problem. Leviticus proscribes detailed and
at times odd-sounding regulations for the ritual cleanliness of ancient Israel. It deals in such subjects as leprosy, bodily discharges and the proper way to make various sacrifices. In these verses, the word translated "abomination" is
the Hebrew "toevah," which refers to acts that make one ritually unclean, such as eating pork or having sexual intercourse with a woman during
menstruation. The question here is one of ritual purity. Christians have been virtually unanimous in recognizing that the church is not under the purity provisions of the Old Testament law. We do not keep kosher, nor do we forbid heterosexual
intercourse during menstruation. When arguing about same sex relations, conservative christians will pull verses like Leviticus 18:22 out of context by invoking an alleged distinction between ceremonial and moral law, so that we may not keep kosher but we are under the 10 Commandments. However, even if such a distinction is recognized, it does not settle the question, "To which category does the prohibition of same-sex relations apply?" Since
Leviticus itself does not answer this question, one must either argue in a circle or look
elsewhere for justification of the claim that the Leviticus 18:22 and similar passages belong to the moral as opposed to the ceremonial law. We move now to the New Testament.
JESUS AND THE GOSPELS
Actually, Jesus says nothing about same sex relationships. Not a single word. While an argument from silence is not, in and of itself,
convincing, it would at least seem that discussing same sex relationships was
not a priority for Jesus. This fact ought to invite a measure of skepticism toward those who, in the name of Jesus, put condemnation of same
sex relationships on center stage.
I CORINTHIANS 6:9, I TIMOTHY 1:10, ACTS 15:28-29
In a list of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God, on two separate occasions, Paul mentions "sodomites" or "homosexual offenders"
depending on your translation. He employs two Greek terms: malakoi and arsenokoitai. Both are notoriously difficult to define. The ancient
world did not have a word "homosexual," nor did it recognize the possibility of persons
who would self-identify as such by orientation. Malakoi is a term of derision referring to the passive ("feminine") partner in sex between two males; arsenokoitai is not found in any extant Greek manuscript prior to I Corinthians. What is known of sexual practice in the ancient world is
that men often had sex with one another as part of ritual worship in a pagan setting and further that such sex routinely involved an adult with a young boy. In the "Apology of Aristides," written some time after I Corinthians, the term
"arsenokoitai" refers to "an obsessive corrupter of young boys." Thus, the only type of same sex relationship of which Paul is aware is exploitative, abusive and set in the context of idolatry. To apply Paul's condemnation of
this sort of relationship to a committed, consensual and loving relationship
between two adults is a stretch, and in the absence of further textual evidence
offers a shaky foundation at best for condemnation of same-sex acts. (For this
section, I relied heavily on Richard B. Hays' excellent book, "The Moral Vision of the
New Testament." He does not reach the same conclusions that I do, but his
exegesis is invaluable and has influenced the entirety of this essay).
ROMANS 1:18-32
Without a doubt, here we find the Bible's lengthiest and most significant treatment of same sex behavior. Yet even here, the case for
Christians condemning such behavior is doubtful. Because the passage is so important, some readers may find my interpretation a bit involved, but some hard work is necessary to clear away the misunderstandings that have
accrued to this text. (The following was part of a class assignment at Princeton
Theological Seminary for the course Exegesis of Romans with Dr. Gaventa, to whom I am indebted for her considerable brains and even more
considerable sass). In Romans 1:18-32 Paul is discussing the wrath of God revealed
against humanity, which he portrays as blinded to God by sin. In verses 24-27, Paul
speaks more specifically of blindness to sin leading people into "degrading
passions," so that they "exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural." This
seems, at first blush, a fairly straightforward condemnation of same sex
relations. However, a few considerations have led me to believe that this passage actually has little to say to the church on these matters. I
will mention two. In the first place, this passage must be read in the larger
context and structure of the book. Romans 1:18 opens a major section of the letter that ends at 3:20. Its purpose is to demonstrate that all people stand equally guilty before God of sin. He concludes that there is no one righteous
(3:10), in order to appeal to the universal need for the work of God in Jesus Christ (3:21ff.) Remembering that the chapter and verse divisions are not divinely inspired but came centuries after Paul wrote Romans, we should note
that the verses that immediately follow (2:1ff) begin with these words:
"Therefore you have no excuse . . .whoever you are, when you judge
someone . .
.for in passing judgment . . .you condemn yourself." Anyone who would
use this text to label some group of people as "sinners" should beware; this
text bites back! It portrays all people as sinners, not just "the perverts." To
fashion it into a club with which to bludgeon other Christians for their sexual
orientation grossly disregards the context. The second consideration involves Paul's mode of arguing. He appeals very explicitly, not to the Gospel or revelation, but to nature. For Paul, the problem with same-sex relations is
that they are "para phusin" literally "contrary to nature." This is the same basis for Paul's plea for women to arrange their hair a certain way. (I Corinthians 11:2-16). Paul is not making a claim from his Gospel but from the
"nature of things." Logically, those who accept the "para phusin" rationale as a basis for condemning same sex behavior will also need to insist that women cover their heads in worship. If, however, nature tells us something
different, if it suggests that homosexuality is a naturally occurring orientation, it would seem that Paul has little to say to us here. Romans 1:18-32 is not a trump card to be played against GLBT individuals.
A CONCLUDING PLEA
There are a great many other subjects I would like to address in relation to this topic.
One wonders, for example, why the church is so very shrill in condemning homosexual promiscuity and so very accommodating of the heterosexual
variety. One wonders how the church can be so complicit in the violence and materialism
of the wider culture and yet so self-righteous on this particular topic. Many readers may not yet be convinced, and that is fine. I have one final question:
Even if, after all of the Biblical evidence has been sifted, one does not find my arguments convincing and still regards same sex behavior as sinful, since when do we exclude particular classes of sinners from the church or from
ministry? If GLBT individuals, why not the greedy? Is God more concerned with sex than greed? Then too there is the analogous question of divorce and remarriage. Jesus said, "I tell you, then, that any man who divorces his wife,
even though she has not been unfaithful, commits adultery if he marries some other woman" (Matthew 19:9). In the 20th century, the church has been confronted with the serious pastoral issue of divorce and remarriage. Faced
with ever more frequent instances, the vast majority of Protestant churches have come to permit divorce and remarriage in other circumstances than those permitted by Jesus. They have not allowed the literal sense of Jesus' words to hinder them from responding compassionately to the problem of divorce.
To those who do not find my arguments convincing, to those who still think the
Bible condemns same-sex relationships as clearly as it does divorce and remarriage, I
ask you, if we can welcome the divorced into the life and leadership of the
church, why not GLBT individuals? Why have compassion on one group that Jesus
seems to condemn and forbid another group that Jesus never addressed? At this
point I can not help but wonder, do we bar the church doors out of faithfulness
to Scripture or blind prejudice? For my part, I would rather err on the side of compassion. In conclusion, my purpose here was to listen carefully to what the Bible has to say about same-sex relationships. I believe I have
demonstrated that the Bible lends scant support to those who would condemn GLBT individuals
and exclude them from the life and the ministry of the church. If one is not convinced about this, at the very minimum, I believe any honest reader of the Bible must conclude that 1.) This is not a topic with which the Bible is
especially concerned, as it is treated so infrequently, and 2.) Expressions of
hatred directed toward GLBT individuals are a far more serious violation of biblical faith than the behavior under attack. Love, my friends, covers a multitude of sin. In facing questions of who does and does not belong
in the church, of which kind of sinners are acceptable and which kind are not, let
those who are without sin cast the first stone. And let the rest of us hear the word of grace: "Than neither do I condemn you."
(c) Rev. Matthew J. Mardis.
(Matt Mardis graduated from Messiah College in 1999 with a degree in religion, and from Princeton Theological Seminary with a Master of Divinity degree in 2002. He is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ and
currently pastors a church in Queens, New York City. Drop him a line at pastorlittleneck@yahoo.com The views expressed here are strictly his own).