Since pretty much the entire Kos community has become focused on the Obama/Warren flap, and the larger cultural issues that this most recent drama fleshes out, I thought maybe we should all take a step back and examine one of the rarely disputed claims that festers beneath the surface of this discussion.
Claim: The Bible unambiguously condemns homosexuality
Evaluation: Below the fold...
Consider the following Biblical verses:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22).
If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them (Leviticus 20:13).
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another (Romans 1:26-27).
These verses individually offer a pretty steep and unambiguous condemnation. In their light, one might be hard pressed to argue that The Bible is anything but fiercely adversarial towards homosexuality.
But to speak of The Bible reflecting a certain belief or position at all is an extremely dicey and problematic proposition in the first place. The Bible is an anthology of numerous different pieces of literature spanning approximately 1,000 years, reflecting numerous genres, written by a variety of authors who lived in vastly different social, political, and geographical climates. Stated simply, there frequently is no single Biblical position on any given topic. The author of Leviticus may have held a vastly different opinion on a certain matter than say Paul in his letter to the Roman church.
The Bible as a single literary corpus is a theological concept. The book of Leviticus was no more written to be read alongside Paul's letters than The Declaration of Independence was written to be read alongside The Communist Manifesto. The notion that the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments each complement one another and contribute towards a single cohesive divine message is a construct of the Christian (specifically, the Protestant) religion. This is not to say that regarding it as such is wrong. But it is important to note that it is only one way (not the one and only way) to read Biblical literature.
So Rick Warren may look to these three verses and say that condemnation against homosexuality is Biblical and therefore carries the weight and authority of all 66 books, while I look at the same verses and say that condemnation against homosexuality is Levitical and Pauline, representing only Leviticus and the Pauline letters.
But perhaps this distinction amounts to hair splitting. And to a certain degree I would agree with that judgment. After all, more than 3/4 of the country adheres to the Christian religion in some form or another. So to dismiss a Biblical reading as merely a Christian reading is not very useful, especially when we consider that discussing Biblical literature and its influence on our society cannot be divorced from a discussion of Christianity. So let's grant for a moment the Protestant Chrisitian notion of a Biblical canon.
Christians, according to their faith, are not obligated to fulfill and abide by all the laws spelled out in the Old Testament. Jesus Christ gave himself to all humankind as the ultimate sacrificial atonement for the forgiveness of all sins, thereby precluding the need to abide by all the minute details of the Law. The result is that we no longer need to abstain from work on the Sabbath, circumcision is no longer a divine mandate, we are not punished for wearing two different types of cloth, etc.
One might be tempted to use this line of reasoning to argue that the prohibitions against homosexual behavior are similarly obviated by Jesus' sacrificial atonement, perhaps on the ground that such prohibitions are now culturally irrelevant and have nothing whatsoever to do with devotion to God and neighbor vis-a-vis the Christian faith. The problem with this argument is that prohibitions against homosexuality are not only found in the Old Testament. Paul, probably the most prolific purveyor of Christianity in the apostolic period, states that homosexual behavior is degrading on the grounds that it is unnatural (Rom 1:26-27).
But interestingly, Paul makes another natural argument in a separate letter that should demand us to question what exactly it means for homosexuality to be "unnatural" in the Pauline sense of the term:
Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair it is her glory? (1 Cor 11:13-14)
To my knowledge, there are no ballot initiatives in the works for the 2009 elections that would ban the unnatural practice of men growing their hair long. I suspect part of the reason for this is that hair in its natural state - at least as we understand the term "natural" - grows just as long on a man as on a woman. And therein lies the crux of the matter. Clearly much of what Paul considered to be natural and unnatural would more easily fit into our modern category "cultural." So when we read that homosexuality is unnatural according to Paul, we must not immediately suppose that he is speaking in terms that apply to our contemporary understanding. And if we want to get serious about natural arguments in relation to discussions on homosexuality, there are a few more things we ought to consider.
The world is a dangerous place. There are floods, famines, plagues, disasters of all kinds that strike all around the world that kill millions of people annually. Much of this results in men and women dying and leaving their children without parents. In a certain sense, one could say that nature has determined that there be parentless children in the world. Wouldn't it be fitting, then, if nature also determined that there be couples who are unable to reproduce on their own and therefore must adopt parentless children if they wish raise a family?
As a final caveat, let me state that I do not think that The Bible advocates homosexuality in any sense. I simply wanted to stress that the discussion on homosexuality and the Bible is open - religious conservatives do not own it.