Homosexuality and the Bible

Introduction

Except for this introduction and some small grammatical alterations, most of this material is not my own but rather the work of a number of theological and/or historical experts in the field, most notably John Boswell and John McNeil. Various sections are scholarly written and may pose some difficulty for certain readers. I would ask through, that even if sections do seem difficult, press-on or read that particular section again.

This paper does not attempt to address in full detail all the scriptural evidence on homosexuality. For a complete discussion, one would need to read the books from which I selected this information. This paper will clearly address: The definition of homosexuality; the dissemination of the cannon of the bible; Sodom and Gommorah; the verses from Leviticus; the Counsel of Jerusalem; selected verses from the New Testament (including Romans 1); homosexual promiscuity and theological reflections on aids.

Frequently, individuals who condemn homosexuality and use the bible to prove their view, do so foolishly. First, most Christians who are intolerant of gays were so prior to becoming religious. On that basis, these persons use scripture not to edify the church or themselves as Christians but to prove their own beliefs prior to becoming Christians. Second, when persons use the bible to demonstrate intolerant attitudes to others, these people don't convey to gay persons (many of whom are not Christians) the fundamental teaching of the new testament. Through faith in the Lord Jesus alone, one will have eternal life. People should remember that we are all sinners. Jesus came not for the righteous but for the sinner; for us and them - for us all!

I believe that the one message above all others from Christ was "Love". We have failed to to show that same love to others throughout history; to women, to blacks and more so now than ever, to gays. And we call gays sinners?!! Then we wonder why there aren't more gay Christians. We condemn them at their very core then tell them to change. A 'true' homosexual has as much chance of becoming a 'true' heterosexual as a black man has of becoming white! May God forgive us our intolerance towards gays on judgment day!

It is important for the reader to keep in mind that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Revised (DSM IIIR) (that is, the definitive authority of all mental disorders used by psychiatrists and psychologists throughout the world) does not include homosexuality as a subject heading for a disorder. Only those persons who have difficulty accepting their sexual orientation are listed - but not homosexuality itself. When writers (some of whom are doctors) comment that homosexuality is a mental disorder, it is important to note that that belief is contrary to current research and the mental-health community as a whole. The following is quoted from the book, Abnormal psychology, by Richard R bootzin and Joan Ross Acocella.

"The issue of homosexuality is surrounded by a good deal of misinformation. One prevailing myth is that homosexuals generally suffer from the type of gender confusion . . . typical of the transsexual. Consequently, many people believe that male homosexuals are invariably limp-wristed, effeminate types and that lesbians are generally tough-looking "dykes". The evidence indicates, however, that only a small minority of homosexuals adopt the mannerisms of the opposite sex; most are indistinguishable from heterosexuals in their superficial appearance. Another popular misconception is that there is a distinctly homosexual personality type. On the contrary, it appears that homosexuals differ as much from one another in personality makeup as do heterosexuals (Hooker, 1957). Third, it is widely believed that homosexuals show a much higher prevalence of psychological disturbance than do heterosexuals. If it was not maladjustment that "drove" them to homosexuality, then their homosexuality, with its attendant guilt, will drive them to maladjustment. In answer to this belief, several studies have shown that despite the social disapproval they are forced to endure, homosexuals are no more prone to psychopathology than are matched groups of heterosexuals (hooker, 1957; Saghir et al., 1969). Fourth, it is assumed by some that homosexuality as a behaviour pattern is especially communicable to children who come into contract with adult homosexuals. However, a preliminary study (Green, 1978) found that of thirty seven children raised in "sexually atypical" households (most of which were headed by female homosexuals), all but one reported preferences for toys, games, clothing and activities typical for their sex. The older children in the study who reported sexual fantasies or behaviour were all heterosexually oriented. Finally, it is often thought that homosexuals, whether male or female, tend to assume either an "active" or a "passive" role in their sexual relations, whereas surveys (Saghir and Robins, 1969; Saghir et al., 1969) show that both female and male homosexuals commonly alternate between active and passive roles."

Most people have prejudices towards a great many things. These intolerances are evidenced through the myths associated to homosexuals as just described above. Unless people can look at a subject including homosexuality, and view it objectively, intolerant attitudes will always continue.

Some people seem fixated on irrationally explaining whether or not this lifestyle is genetic or environmentally induced. Does it really matter? If science shows in the years to come that certain types of homosexuality are innate (genetic, hormonal, alternative synaptic arrangement in the nervous system) that would then demonstrate that certain persons have no ability to alter their innate drives. If on the other hand, science shows that certain types of homosexuality are environmentally induced during early childhood (upbringing, nutrition, type of parenting or phases of Pluto) that would then demonstrate that these causes are again well beyond the person's control. As we shall see from scripture, God does not condemn homosexuals - not now, not back then, not ever!

The Need for a Definition of Homosexuality

The prefix homo, in the word homosexual, is derived from the Greek root meaning "same" and not from the Latin word for "man". Consequently, it designates anyone who is sexually attracted to someone of the same sex and includes both male and female homosexuals, or lesbians. Most human beings are capable of either homosexual or heterosexual activity, independent of the question of their own psychological sexual orientation. Many homosexuals marry and have children, frequently in an effort to conceal their sexual orientation. On the other hand, there is no necessary connection between overt homosexual behaviour and the permanent psychological condition of homosexuality. Many people have had homosexual experiences who do not have a predominantly homosexual orientation but are definitely heterosexually inclined. Consequently, it is important for the moralist to keep the distinction between homosexual activity and the homosexual condition clearly in mind. For there is an important difference in the moral judgment to be passed on a heterosexual indulging in homosexual activity and a true homosexual indulging in the same behaviour as an expression of his or her love.

Alfred Kinsey limited himself exclusively to objective behaviour in the scientific study he made of sexual mores in the US, leaving aside the subjective question of the sexual orientation of his respondents. According to Kinsey, as much as thirty-seven percent of the male population had some overt homosexual experience. In the majority of cases, however, these experiences seemed to involve little more than transitory experimentation which did not inhibit a later satisfactory heterosexual adjustment. There are many other forms of contingent homosexual practice which can be called situational and which do not indicate a true homosexual psychological condition. When, for example men are isolated together for long periods of time and separated from the companionship of women - as in prisons or at sea - many will adopt homosexual behaviours; but most of them normally discard their homosexual behaviour and resume a heterosexual orientation once withdrawn from their segregated situation. Still other forms of conditional homosexual behaviour, which do not necessarily indicate a homosexual condition, can be called variational (e.g., heterosexuals who occasionally take part in homosexual activity out of curiosity or as an easy means of sexual indulgence). Still one other form of conditional homosexual behaviour should be mentioned. This category involves people who, although they are fundamentally heterosexually inclined, adopt homosexual behaviour consequent upon some traumatic event or psychic disorder. If they are cured of their trauma or disorder, they will revert to their original heterosexual inclination.

Although all of the above groups have had some homosexual experience, none of them are what could be called 'true' homosexuals. Todays we use the word homosexual primarily to refer to the psychic condition of the individual and not just to occasional behaviour (The behaviour does not classify a person as homo-or heterosexual but rather the psyche. A heterosexual male living a celibate lifestyle is still considered a heterosexual. And conversely, a homosexual abstaining from sexual activity is still homosexual.) D. W. Cory defines the homosexual as "any person who feels a most urgent sexual desire which in the main is directed toward gratification with the same sex." The Dutch Catechism used the term to refer to those "whose eroticism cannot be directed to the other sex, but apparently only to the same sex to which they themselves belong." As John Cavanaugh remarks, "It is important to accept the concept that homosexuality is a way of thinking and feeling, not merely a way of acting. The performance of homosexual acts is, therefore, not in itself evidence of homosexuality". Christopher Isherwood indicates the subjective norm of knowing oneself to be homosexual when he writes: "You first know you are homosexual when you fall in love with another man".

As D. S. Baily observes, strictly speaking neither the Bible nor Christian tradition knew anything of homosexuality as such; both were concerned solely with the commission of homosexual acts and as described above are different from true homosexuality. Homosexuality is not, as commonly supposed, a kind of conduct, but a psychological condition (as is heterosexuality); thus one need not engage in heterosexual activities to be considered heterosexual. It is important to understand that the genuine homosexual condition - or inversion, as it is often termed - is something for which the subject can in no way be held responsible. In itself it is morally neutral. Like the condition of heterosexuality, however, it tends to find expression in specific sexual acts; and such acts are subject to moral judgment. We must distinguish , then, between the invert and the pervert. The pervert is not a genuine homosexual; rather, he is a heterosexual who engages in homosexual practices, or a homosexual who engages in heterosexual practices. This distinction between the condition of inversion and the behaviour of perversion is indispensable for a correct interpretation of biblical and traditional sources.

The real moral problem of homosexuality has to do with judging the moral value of sexual activity between genuine homosexuals who seek to express their love for one another in a sexual gesture. Scripture can be understood as clearly and explicitly condemning true homosexual activity only if it can be interpreted as condemning the activity of a true invert. There is ample evidence that in most instances where Scripture deals with homosexuality the author probably had in mind what today we would call perversion, namely, the indulgence in homosexual activity on the part of those who were by nature heterosexually inclined.

Dissemination of the cannon of the Bible

The bible was not disseminated in the early church under the form in which it came to be known later as the bible. Early Christians read and venerated (that is respected with reverence) many books now rejected as apocryphal (that is writings of questionable authenticity) (i.e., the Epistle of Barnabas). Roman Catholicism did not officially establish the bible until the Council of Trent is 1546, although there had been general agreement on the contents of the New Testament (NT) at least since the eighth century.

The bible was not the only or even principal source of early Christian ethics and bible passages on homosexuality had very little to do with early Christian misgivings on the subject. Despite the misleading English translations which may imply the contrary, the word homosexual does not occur in the bible; no extant (that is existing) text of Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, or Aramaic contains such a word. In fact none of these languages ever contained a word corresponding to the English "homosexual," nor did any languages have such a term before the late nineteenth century. Neither Hebrew nor Arabic has such a word today, nor does modern Greek, except as they coin words by analogy with the pseudo-Latin "homosexual." There are of course ways to get around the lack of a specific word in a language, and an action may be condemned without being named, but it is doubtful in this particular case whether a concept of homosexual behaviour as a class existed at all.

Sodom and Gommorah

Old Testament (OT) condemnation of gays stem from several passages the most well known of course is Genesis 19 (19:4-11), the story of Sodom and its eventual destruction. There have been a number of theories why Sodom was destroyed but a homosexual explanation is relatively recent. None of the many OT passages which refer to Sodom's wickedness suggests any homosexual offenses and the rise of homosexual associations can be traced to social trends and literature of a much later period. It is not likely that such associations played a large role in determining early Christian attitudes. On textual evidence alone, four inferences could be made regarding Sodom's destruction:

1. Sodomites were destroyed for the general wickedness which had prompted the Lord to send angels to the city to investigate the city in the first place.

2. People of Sodom tried to rape the angels.

3. The men of Sodom had tried to engage in homosexual intercourse with the angels. Note that this is not the same as number 2 - rape and homosexual intercourse are separate articles listed in Jewish law.

4. The city was destroyed for inhospitable treatment of visitors sent from the Lord.

Since 1955 modern scholarship has increasingly favored interpretation number four accepting the original biblical interpretation, emphasizing that the sexual overtones to the story are minor, if present, and that the original moral impact of the passage had to do with hospitality - This theory was most prominently expounded by Bailey but has been taken up subsequently by many writers with varying degrees of acceptance (e.g., Marvin Pope in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume.)

Because Lot was not a 'permanent inhabitant' of Sodom but was a ger or sojourner (that is residing temporarily) he needed permission to entertain foreign guests at night. Lot may have exceeded his rights by receiving and entertaining two foreigners whose intentions might have been hostile and whose credentials it seems, had not been examined. This explanation provides a natural reason for the demand, "Where are the men who came to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them." Hence, when the men of Sodom gathered around to demand that the strangers be brought out to them, "that they might know them" they meant no more than to "know" who they were and the city was consequently destroyed not for sexual immorality but for the sin of inhospitality to strangers.

There are several other aspects to the narrative, besides those Bailey mentions, which tend to indicate that in the mind of the Yahwist author of the narrative, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was primarily one of inhospitality to strangers. For example, when the angelic visitors came as strangers to Abraham's tent, the quality of Abraham as a good man is dramatically established by an emphasis on his hospitable reception of the strangers. Raising his eyes he saw three men standing near him. On seeing them, he ran from the door of his tent to meet them, and bowing to the ground said; " Oh sirs, if perchance I find favor with you, please do not pass by without stopping with your servant. Let a little water be brought to wash your feet, and stretch yourselves out under the tree, while I fetch a bit of food that you may refresh yourselves. Afterwards you many proceed on your way, since you will then have paid your servant a visit" (Gen. 18:1-5)

Similarly the quality of Lot as a good man worthy of God's favor is established in contrast to the other inhabitants of Sodom by his hospitality to the same strangers in terms strongly reminiscent of the story of the disciples of Emmaus in the NT:

The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening while Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to greet them, bowing his face to the ground, and saying: "If you please, sires, come over to your servant's house to pass the night and wash your feet; in the morning you may rise early, and go on your way." But they said: "No, we will pass the night in the open." He pressed them so strongly, however, that they went over to his house, where he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread for them to eat. (Gen. 19:1-3)

As D. S. Bailey pointed out, The Hebrew verb (yadha) translated "to know" (in some newer versions is translated incorrectly to, "have sex with" {N.I.V}) is rarely used in a sexual sense in the Bible (despite popular opinion to the contrary): In only ten of its 943 occurrences in the OT does it have the sense of carnal knowledge and none of these ten imply any homosexual connotation. The word normally used in the OT for both homosexual coitus and bestiality is shakhabh..

Jesus himself apparently believed that Sodom was destroyed for the sin of inhospitality when he discusses the problem of inhospitable reception towards his disciples, "Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement, than for that city" (Matt 10: 14-15; cf. Luke: 10: 10-12)

Sodom is used as a symbol of evil in dozens of places but not in a single instance in any of the OT is the sin of the Sodomites specified as homosexuality (see Deut 29:23, 32:32, Isa 3:9, 13:19, Jer 23:14, 49:18, 50:40, Luke 17:29, Rom 9:29, 2 Pet 2:6, Jude 7.[some authors mistakenly interpret Jude 7 as homosexual allusion, but there is absolutely no justification for this: this is discussed below]) Yet such a reference would have been obvious if the sin of Sodom was understood as involving homosexual practices. On the other hand, other sins are explicitly mentioned. Ecclesiasticus says that God abhorred the Sodomites for their Pride 16:8 and the book of Wisdom advances the same theory (19:13-14) (Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom are considered apocryphal by Protestants and Jews. Regardless of the dispute over the OT canon, these works certainly antedate (that is, precede in time) the tradition of Sodom's homosexuality and indicate a more ancient tradition).

Ezekiel says "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy (16:48-49 KJV) - no mention of sexual sin.

One must also bear in mind that such OT writers were responding to the same story which some modern interpreters still claim "obviously" refers to homosexuality and ancient writers were on a far more intimate footing than modern writers with both the language and life-stlye of the people involved. Their refusal to see the account as a moral about homosexual behaviour cannot be lightly disregarded, especially in the face of so little evidence to support a homosexual interpretation.

Genesis 19 and Judges 19

What is most striking is the very similar passages in Judges 19:16-22. This story is almost identical to the story of Sodom. As in Sodom the men of the community gather around the door of the old man's house and even use the same words as the Sodomites: "Bring the man out that we may know him" - and the old man even offers his daughter as a bribe. But Jews and Christians have overwhelmingly failed to interpret this story as one of homosexuality, correctly assessing it as a moral issue about inhospitality.

Joshua 6

Joshua 6 offers further insight into the importance of hospitality in relation to sexual offenses: the city of Jericho, like Sodom was completely destroyed by the Lord, and the one person spared was a prostitute - though prostitution is prohibited in both Leviticus 19:20 and Deuteronomy 23:17 because she offered hospitality to the messengers of Joshua. It is important to note, that inns even in the cities were rare and travelers relied on the good will of strangers. This person was spared her life only for her hospitable treatment she gavevto the strangers.

The original understanding of the story of Sodom survived in some circles until well into the middle ages. The epistle of Jude says "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (7 KJV). In these early accretions to the story there is no hint of homosexuality: "strange flesh" hardly suggests homoeroticism. The Jewish tradition to which Jude alludes was a legend that the women of Sodom had intercourse with the angles.

Genesis 19 was not a principal source of early Christian hostility to homosexual relations, although it eventually gave a name to those who took part in them. This was partly due to misgivings about the OT's authority, especially among Christians of non-Jewish ancestry, and partly due to the survival of more authentic interpretations of the story's meaning. "Hear this, you who close your homes to guests! Hear this, you who shun the traveler as an enemy! Lot lived among the Sodomites, We do not read of any other good deeds of his:. . . he escaped the flames, escaped the fire, on account of one thing only. He opened his home to guests. The angels entered the hospitable household; the flames entered those homes closed to guests" (Homilia Vin Genesim [PG, 12:188-89]) Lot was not God's example of a righteous man but what he did was invite some strangers into his house and because of this, not anything else, he was spared (just like the prostitute in Joshua).

Saint Ambrose saw the moral issue as primarily one of hospitality: Lot "placed the hospitality of his house - sacred even among a barbarous people - above the modesty [of his daughters]" De Abrahamo 1.6.52

Sodomites: 'Kadah'

The word 'sodomite' occurs twice in the KJV of the OT in contexts which imply sexual sins. (Deut 23:17, 1 Kings 14:24) Even if these were accurate translations, the word would not necessarily imply homosexuality, since by the early seventeenth century "sodomy" referred to "unnatural" sex acts of any type and included certain relations between hetero- or homosexuals. In fact however, these are simply mistranslations of a Hebrew word for temple prostitute. The word 'kadah' (pagan temple prostitutes) literally means hallowed or sacred, referring to prostitutes in pagan temples. There is no reason to assume that such prostitutes (Kadah) serviced persons of their own sex. The word implies no such thing and there is so little evidence about practices that such deductions are absurd. In fact, none of the terms which appear in the Septuagint (that is the oldest Greek version of the OT) as translations for 'kadah' would have suggested homosexuality to the theologians of the early church who relied almost exclusively on the Greek translation of the OT. The Vulgate (that is, the Latin version of the Bible used in the Roman Catholic Church) rendered the terms as "effeninati" and "scortator." Only the former could be taken as relation to gay sexuality, but in fact almost no theologians invoked these passages as condemnations of homosexual behaviour until after the mistraslation of the words into English. They are wholly irrelevant to the development of attitudes toward homosexuality in medieval Christendom.

It would seem fairly certain, then, that the sin of Sodom was understood in biblical times as primarily one of inhospitality. If this interpretation of the true sin of Sodom is correct, then we are dealing here with one of the supremely ironic paradoxes of history. For thousands of years in the Christian West, homosexuals have been the victim of inhospitable treatment. Condemned by the Church, they have been the victim of persecution, torture, and even death. In the name of a mistaken understanding of the crime of Sodom and Gomorrah, the true crime of Sodom and Gomorrah has been and continues to be repeated every day - how truly very sad!!

Leviticus

The only place in the OT where homosexual acts per se are mentioned is Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination (KJV) and Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (KJV)

The Hebrew word 'toevah' here translated 'abomination' does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters. Often "toevah" specifically means "idol" and its connection with idolatry is patent (that is, unmistakenly evident to everyone) even within the context of the passages regarding homosexual acts.

In the Greek, then, the Levitical enactments against homosexual behaviour characterize it unequivocally as ceremonially unclean rather than inherently evil. The irrelevance of the two Levitical verses however, were emphasized by the teaching of both Jesus and Paul that under the new dispensation, it was not physical violation of Levitical precepts which constituted 'abomination', but the interior infidelity of the soul.

Counsel of Jerusalem

Around 45 A.D. non-Jewish converts to Christianity found most of the provisions of Jewish law extremely burdensome, if not intolerable, and a fierce dispute racked the early church over whether Christians should be bound by it or not. The issue was finally resolved at the Council of Jerusalem (AD 49 see Acts 15). After long and bitter debate within the highest ranks of the Christian community, it was decided that pagan converts to the Christian faith would not be bound by any requirements of the Mosaic law - including circumcision - with four exceptions: they were to:

Abstain from pollutions of idols, Abstain from blood, Abstain from things strangled, Abstain from fornication.

An apostolic letter was sent to Gentile Christians informing them of this decision and specifically censuring (that is, harshly criticizing) efforts of Jewish Christians to impost Jewish law on them beyond these four exceptions. Neither "pollutions of idols" nor "fornication" was or could be interpreted as referring to homosexuality. The former alluded to food which had been sacrificed to idols and was afterward often served at meals in pagan homes, as is made clear in the apostolic letter itself (v. 29) and elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., Acts 21:25, I Cor. 8:10). Although there is some ambiguity about the Greek word as translated fornication, it is clearly distinct from the Levitical proscriptions of homosexuality. Homosexuality is nearly always distinguished from 'fornication' in patristic (that is the writings from the fathers of the Christian church) literature.

It can even be argued, moreover, that even the four exceptions listed in Acts were imposed upon new Christians not by way of moral judgment on the acts involved but simply to facilitate interaction between pagan-born and Jewish members of Christian communities (by encouraging the former to eschew behaviour whose profanity might particularly offend Jews adhering to Levitical precepts). This point of view is supported by scriptural evidence (e.g., I Cor. 10:32) as well as the almost complete silence on the issue of strangled meat and blood in subsequent Christian moral teaching - a silence which would be perplexing if the church had considered the exceptions mentioned at the Counsel of Jerusalem to be binding moral judgments.

The struggle over the issue of Gentile Christians and the Mosaic law was such a profound trauma for the early church that once it was resolved there was no thought of trying to bind new Christians - even converts from Judaism - by its proscriptions. Saint Paul urged Christians not to be "entangled again with the yoke of bondage" (Gal. 5:1-1) or to give "heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth," for "unto the pure all things are pure" (Titus 1:14-15). In fact he went so far as to assert that "if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing" (Gal. 5:2).

Almost no early Christian writers appealed to Leviticus as authority against homosexual acts. A few patristic sources invoked Levitical precedents about eating certain animals in relation to homosexuality, but they did so incorrectly and offered the Levitical law only as a symbol of how God felt about the animals. They did not suggest for a minute that the dietary laws be observed in their entirety. It would simply not have occurred to most early Christians to invoke the authority of the old law to justify the morality of the new: The levitical regulations had no hold on Christians and are manifestly irrelevant in explaining Christian hostility to gay sexuality. Even in the case of the exceptional Christian theologians who did refer to Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13, the opinions therein cannot be seen as the origin of their attitudes, since they rejected the vast majority of Levitical precepts, retaining only those which suited their personal prejudice. Their extreme selectivity in approaching the huge corpus of Levitical law is clear evidence that it was not their respect for the law which created their hostility to homosexuality but their hostility to homosexuality which led them to retain a few passages from a law code largely discarded.

Genesis

If the OT had no specific positive role in creating early Christian attitudes toward homosexual acts, may it have had a negative role? Would not the complete silence on the subject of gay sexuality and the predication of all OT moral legislation on a heterosexual model have predisposed Christians to reject homosexuality as alien to God's plan, no matter how they viewed the authority of Jewish law? The assumption that the creation of human kind through heterosexual union in Genesis and the subsequent emphasis on marriage throughout the OT demonstrates tacit (that is, implied but not expressed) rejection of gay sexuality is insupportable in a modern context, and it does not seem to have occurred to early Christians. It does not figure in any polemic (that is, a controversial argument as one against a doctrine) on the subject and would have constituted an extremely weak argument if it had. In fact, intense love relations between persons of the same gender figure prominently in the OT (e.g., Saul and David, David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi) and were celebrated throughout the Middle Ages in both ecclesiastical and popular literature as examples of extraordinary devotion, sometimes with distinctly erotic overtones. Moreover, in an age which employed symbols and myths to explain all its fundamental truths, it would have been obvious even to the most naive that in order to account for the origins of the human race the writer of Genesis would inevitably describe the creation of the separate sexes which produce offspring and would comment on the nature of the union which brings about procreation. The stories in Genesis account for the populating of the planet. One would no more expect an account of gay love than friendship in Genesis: neither could produce offspring, neither had and neither would contribute to the story of the peopling of the earth.

New Testament

Saint Paul, whose commitment to Jewish law had taken up most of his life, never suggested that there was any historical or legal reason to oppose homosexual behaviour: if he did in fact object to it, it was purely on the basis of functional, contemporary moral standards.

There are three passages in the writings of Paul which have been supposed to deal with homosexual relations. Two words in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and one in 1 Timothy 1:10 have been taken at least since the early twentieth century to indicate that "homosexuals' will be excluded from the kingdom of heaven.

The first of the two, which basically means "soft", is an extremely common Greek word; it occurs elsewhere in the NT with the meaning "sick" (see Matt. 11:8) and in patristic writings with senses as varied as "liquid," "cowardly," "refined," "weak willed," "delicate," "gentle," and "debauched." In a specifically moral context it very frequently means "licentious," "loose," or "wanting in self-control." At a broad level, it might be translated as wither "unrestrained" or "wanton," but to assume that either of these concepts necessarily applies to gay people is wholly gratuitous. The word is never used in Greek to designate gay people as a group or even in reference to homosexual acts generically, and it often occurs in writings contemporary with the Pauline epistles in reference to heterosexual persons or activity.

What is more to the point, the unanimous tradition of the church through the Reformation, and of Catholicism until well into the twentieth century, has been that this word applied to masturbation. This was the interpretation not only of native Greek speakers in the early Middle Ages, but of the very theologians who most contributed to the stigmatization of homosexuality. No new textual data effected the twentieth-century change in translation of this word: only a shift in popular morality. Since few people any longer regard masturbation as the sort of activity which would preclude entrance to heaven, the condemnation has simply been transferred to a group still so widely despised that their exclusion does not trouble translators or theologians.

The second word is quite rare, and its application to homosexuality in particular is more understandable. The best evidence, however, suggests very strongly that it did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his contemporaries but meant "male Prostitute" until well into the fourth century, after which it became confused with a variety of words for disapproved sexual activity and was often equated with homosexuality.

The remaining passage, Romans 1:26-27, does not suffer from mistranslation, although little attention has been paid to the ramifications of its wording: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise, also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet"

It is sometimes argued that the significance of the passage lies in its connection with idolatry: i.e., that Paul censures the sexual behaviour of the Romans because he associates such behaviour with orgiastic pagan rites in honour of false gods. This might seem to be suggested by the OT condemnations of temple prostitution. Paul may have been familiar with temple prostitution, both homo and heterosexual, and it is reasonable to conjecture that he is here warning the Romans against the immorality of the kadeshim.. The fact that the overall structure of the chapter juxtaposes the sexual activities in question with the superstitious beliefs of the Romans adds further credence to this theory, as do possible OT echoes.

Under closer examination, however, this argument proves to be inadequate. First of all, there is no reason to believe that homosexual temple prostitution was more prevalent than heterosexual or that Paul, had he been addressing himself to such practices, would have limited his comments to the former. Second, it is clear that the sexual behaviour itself is objectionable to Paul, not merely its associations. Third, and possible most important, Paul is not describing cold-blooded, dispassionate acts performed in the interest of ritual or ceremony: he states very clearly that the parties involved "burned" in their lust one toward another" It is unreasonable to infer from the passage that there was any motive for the behaviour other than sexual desire.

On the other hand, it should be recognized that the point of the passage is not to stigmatize sexual behaviour of any sort but to condemn the Gentiles for their general infidelity. There was a time, Paul implies, when monotheism was offered to or known by the Romans, but they rejected it (vv. 19-23). The reference to homosexuality is simply a mundane analogy to this theological sin; it is patently not the crux of this argument. Once the point has been made, the subject of homosexuality is quickly dropped and the major argument resumed (vv. 28ff.).

What is even more important, the persons Paul condemns are manifestly not homosexual: what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons. The whole point of Romans 1, in fact, is to stigmatize persons who have rejected their calling, gotten off the true path they were once on. It would completely undermine the thrust of the argument if the persons in question were not "naturally" inclined to monotheism. What caused the Romans to sin was not that they lacked what Paul considered proper inclinations but that they had them: They held the truth, but "in unrighteousness" (v.18), because "they did not see fit to retain Him in their knowledge" (v. 28). This aspect of the verses, overlooked by modern scholarship, did not escape the attention of early Christian writers.

Although the idea that homosexuality represented a congenital physical characteristic was widespread in the Hellenistic world - and undoubtedly well known to Chrysostom - it is not clear that Paul distinguished in his thoughts or writings between gay persons (iinverts) and heterosexuals who simply engaged in periodic homosexual activities (perverts). Whether or not he was aware of their existence - Paul did not discuss gay persons but only homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons.

There is, however, no clear condemnation of homosexual acts in the verses in question. The expression "against nature" is the standard English equivalent of Paul's Greek phrase which was first used in this context by Plato. Its original sexes has been almost wholly obscured by 2,000 years of repetition in stock phrases and by the accretion of association inculcated by social taboos, patristic and Reformation theology, Freudian psychology, and personal misgivings.

The concept of "natural law" was not fully developed until more than a millennium after Paul's death, and it is anachronistic to read it into his words. For Paul, "nature" was not a question of universal law or truth but, rather, a matter of the character of some person or group of persons, a character which was largely ethnic and entirely human: Jews are Jews "by nature," just as Gentiles are Gentiles "by nature". "Nature is not a moral force for Paul: men may be evil or good "by nature," depending on their own disposition. A possessive is always understood with "nature" in Pauline writings: it is not "nature" in the abstract but someone's "nature," the Jews' "nature" or the Gentiles' "nature".

"Nature" in Romans 1:26, then, should be understood as the personal nature of the pagans in question. This is made even clearer by the strikingly similar passage in the Testament of Naphtali, a roughly contemporary document whose comment on this subject was obviously influenced by (if not an influence on) Paul's remarks. "The Gentiles, deceived and having abandoned the Lord, changed their order...[Be ye not therefore] like Sodom, which changed the order of its nature. Likewise also the Watchers changed the order of their nature..."(3%3%4-5)

"Against" is, moreover, a somewhat misleading translation of the preposition "9apa". In NT usage "9apa" connotes not "in opposition to" (expressed by "Kata") but, rather, "more than," "in excess of"; immediately before the passage in question, for example, what the king James renders as "more than" (the creator) is the same preposition.

Finally, the exact same phrase is used later in the same epistle do describe the activity of God in saving the Gentiles: "For if thou contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" (Rom. 11:24, KJV). Since God himself is here described as acting "against nature," it is inconceivable that this phrase necessarily connotes moral turpitude. Rather, it signifies behaviour which is unexpected, unusual, or different form what would occur in the normal order of things: "beyond nature," perhaps, but not "immoral." There is no implication of the contravening of "natural law" in Paul's use of this phrase, and for Christians familiar with all of the books which now comprise the NT the phrase may have had no negative implications at all; in 2 Peter 2:12 for example, a similar passage employs "natural" as a term of derogation.

Paul believed that the Gentiles know of the truth of God but rejected it and likewise rejected their true "nature" as regarded their sexual appetites, going beyond what was "natural" for them and what was approved for the Jews. It cannot be inferred from this that Paul considered mere homoerotic attraction or practice morally reprehensible, since the passage strongly implies that he was not discussing persons who were by inclination gay and since he carefully observed, in regard to both the women and the men, that they changed or abandoned the "natural us" to engage in homosexual activities.

In sum, there is only one place in the writings which eventually became the Christian Bible where homosexual relations per se are clearly prohibited - Leviticus - and the context in which this prohibition occurred rendered it inapplicable to the Christian community, at least as moral law. It is almost never cited as grounds for objection to homosexual acts (except allegorically). The notion that Genesis 19 - the account of Sodom's destruction - condemned homosexual relations was the result of myths popularized during the early centuries of the Christian era but not universally accepted until much later and only erratically invoked in discussions of the morality of gay sexuality. Many patristic authors concluded that the point of the story was to condemn inhospitality to strangers; others understood it to condemn rape; most interpreted it in broadly allegorical terms, only tangentially related to sexuality. There was no word in classical Hebrew or Greek for "homosexual", and there is no evidence, linguistic or historical, to suggest that either the kadeshim of the OT or the apoevokoitau of the NT were gay people or particularly given to homosexual practices. On the contrary, it is clear that these words merely designated types of prostitutes: in the case of the former, those associated with pagan temples; in that of the later, active (as opposed to passive) male prostitutes servicing either sex.

Romans 1 did not condemn homosexual behaviour as "against nature" (para physin) in the sense of the violation of "natural law." No clear idea of "natural law" existed in Paul's time or for many centuries thereafter. To Paul, the activities in question were beyond nature in the sense of "extraordinary, peculiar," as was the salvation of the Gentiles, described with the same phrase. Moreover, the persons referred to were considered by influential early Christian theologians to have been necessarily heterosexual (i.e., "naturally" attracted to the opposite sex). There was no implication in the passage that homosexual acts, much less homosexual persons, were necessarily sinful.

It might be urged that the general thrust of NT sexuality would preclude licit homosexual relations for Christians regardless of specific prohibitions. Any arguments which could be made in support of this position however, would be anachronistic; on the basis of the text of the Bible alone no such conclusion is warranted. Sexuality appears to have been largely a matter of indifference to Jesus. His comments on sexual mores are extremely few, especially in comparison with the frequency of his observations on such matters as wealth and demonic possession, which were largely ignored by later Christians. Even where sexuality is specifically mentioned, the aim is generally to make a larger point: e.g., using the example of committing adultery "in one's heart" to point out that it was the intent which constituted the sin (Matt. 5: 28). Although he insisted on the indissolubility of the marriage bond, he was widely thought to have advocated celibacy (Matt. 19:10-12; some of his followers, notably Origen, took this quite literally), and he certainly rejected the position of paramount importance accorded the family under Mosaic law and Judaic culture (Matt. 8:21-22, 10:35-37, 12:46-50, 19:29; Luke 9:59-60, 14:26-27; etc.) When confronted with adulterers, he recommended no punishment and clearly suggested that the sins anyone else might have committed were of equal gravity (John 8:3-11; cf. 4:16-19). He pronounced no condemnation of sexuality among the unmarried and said nothing which bore any relation to homosexuality. The only sexual issue of importance to Jesus appears to have been fidelity: he did not mention the procreation or rearing of children in connection with marriage but only its permanence, and he prohibited divorce except in cases of infidelity. Jesus was celibate himself, and the only persons with whom the Gospels suggest he had any special relationship were men, especially Saint John, who carefully describes himself throughout his gospel as the disciple whom Jesus loved.

While Saint Paul did not specifically comment on gay feelings or lifestyles, he would have disapproved of any form of sexuality which had as its end purely sexual pleasure, and he might have disapproved of relationships directed chiefly at the expression of erotic passion. He did not, however, suggest any connection between sexuality and procreation - a link created by a later age - and he clearly regarded licit sexuality as that contained within a permanent and monogamous relationship. He not only permitted but urged Christians to satisfy the sexual needs of their spouses ("Do not refuse each other except by mutual consent, and then only for an agreed time, to leave yourself free for prayer," 1 Cor 7:5, JB). In recommending celibacy, and sexual abstinence even for the married, he did not adduce the evils of sexual pleasure or concupiscence as arguments against the licitly of sex but clearly indicated as the reason for Christian restraint in such matters the impending arrival of the Kingdom of God, before which all earthly concerns should seem secondary: "But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; as they that weep, as though they wept not; . . . and they that buy, as though they possessed not" (1 Cor. 7:29-30, KJV).

For Paul, Christian sexuality had little to do with "purity" of seed ("All things are lawful unto me," 1 Cor 6:12) or of procreative justification for sexual pleasure ("To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife," 7:2) but was, rather a question of good stewardship - of using sexuality in a way that was not obsessive ("All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any," 6:12) did not cause scandal, and did not distract Christians from the service of the Lord ("that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction," 7:35, all KJV).

There is no inherent reason why unions between persons of the same sex could not have met these moral criteria, but it may well be argued that the complete silence of early Christian writers and on the part of Jesus disaprroved of homosexuality. Such a conclusion fails to take cognizance of the historical circumstances surrounding the formulation of early Christian sexual ethics. It is hardly surprising that Jesus and Paul, in responding to question put to them regarding marriage, the family, and divorce, would frame their answers in terms of heterosexual relationships. Their intent was manifestly not to explain or legislate on the whole range of human affections, and they made no pretense of providing moral guidance on all forms of love. They simply answered troublesome questions about heterosexual marriage submitted to them by persons attempting to establish a new sexual morality in societies where there were no social services for the widowed or orphaned; no legal guarantees of protection for unwed mothers or alimony for divorcees; no effective means of birth control except abstinence, abortion, or abandonment of unwanted children.

Promiscuity and Homosexuality

The claim is frequently made on the basis of scientific data that homosexual acts represent a failure in full human development and that homosexual practices are necessarily psychologically destructive for the parties involved. Curran, for example, insists that those who argue in favor of homosexuality "fail to come to grips with the accepted fact that most homosexual liaisons are of the 'one night stand' variety." Consequently, there is no sexual union expressive of loving commitment to one another. "No one can deny that there are many stable relationships, but these do not clearly constitute the majority of the cases."

The scientific data that Curran adduces in support of his statement that most homosexual liaisons are promiscuous derive from a reference in a footnote in a sociological study, "Homosexuality: The Formation of a Sociological Perspective," by Simon and Gagnon. He quotes these sociologists as writing: "These data, then suggest a depersonalized quality, a driven or compulsive character quality, to the sexual activity of many homosexuals, which cannot be reckoned as anything but extremely costly to them." Curran himself acknowledges, however, that there are "many stable homosexual relationships" and lists the authors of a number of recent scientific studies (Clara Thompson, Evelyn Hooker, Wardell Pomeroy, etc.) who indicate the hitherto unsuspected numbers of such successful liaisons.

These same authors establish excellent reasons why these stable liaisons must remain hidden and, consequently, why accurate statistical data concerning the stability of homosexual liaisons is for all practical purposes difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. Thus there can be no certain scientific data to justify a clear conclusion that "stable relationships are not a majority." In view of widespread premarital activity, prostitution, marital infidelity, the increasing divorce rate (which one survey claims is rapidly approaching the fifty percent mark), etc., one wonders what specific data could be offered to prove the existence of a lesser degree of infidelity and depersonalized and compulsive sexual activity among heterosexuals.

As for the statement, "Those who argue in favor of homosexuality have filed to come to grips with the problem of the transitory nature of many homosexual liaisons," just the opposite is the truth. The majority of authors dealing with the problem recognize and establish beyond serious doubt that the primary reason for this negative quality in many homosexual liaisons is the quilt and self-hatred which so many homosexuals tend to introject as a result of the judgement passed on them by society. As Dennis Altman observes:

Like the black, the homosexual suffers from a self-fulfilling stereotype. Tell people long enough that they are inferior, and they will come to believe it. Most of us are niggers because we believe that we are in large part what society constantly brands us as; in response we come to exhibit the characteristics that justify our stigma. There are a large number of neurotic, unhappy, compulsively promiscuous homosexuals whom one might well regard as "pathological." This pathology is, however, the result of social pressures and the way they have internalized these, not of homosexuality itself. If people are led to feel guilty about an essential part of their own identity, they will in all likelihood experience considerable psychological pressures.

But even if we grant for the sake of argument that the majority of the homosexual's liaisons are promiscuous, this does not establish a rational ground for the condemnation of homosexuality as such, but only of promiscuity. If it should happen that the data in a given society proved that the majority of heterosexual contacts were of a one-night stand variety, would the conclusion follow, then, that heterosexual activities in themselves are sinful? Obviously one is assuming some unproven intrinsic connection between homosexuality and promiscuity. The fact remains that if even only one homosexual liaison can be proven to have been an expression of genuine human love and fidelity, then the existence of such an intrinsic necessary connection has been effectly disproven.

It does not take much imagination to understand how much heterosexual activity would tend to be dehumanized, illegal and criminal by the state and the effect of sin by the Church. As we have seen, the insistence on the objective sinfulness of all homosexual relationships is precisely the type of moral thinking that psychologically destroys the ability of many homosexuals to enter into a permanent and fruitful relationship.

Some Theological Reflections on AIDS

Among the many voices being raised in the churches today, there are some who would have us identify the AIDS epidemic with God's vengeance on the homosexual community. The judgement implicit in such a viewpoint is that all homosexual activity is "sinful." Those who make such a claim betray a fundamental misunderstanding and distortion of the Christian revelation concerning the nature of God. Amid the trappings of theology and piety, such voices frequently reveal homophobic prejudices and thinly veiled hatred of gay men and lesbian women.

The Father whom Jesus revealed is a loving and merciful parent, not one who punishes children like a wrathful father or a vengeful mother, especially for something over which they have no choice: "You did not receive a spirit of slavery bringing fear into you life again, but a spirit of adoption by which you can cry out: Abba [Father, Mother]" (Rom. 12:15). Jesus specifically repudiated the pagan notion that God inflicts physical punishment on earth for supposed sin (cf. Lk. 13), and strongly condemned the pagan worship of God out of superstitious fear. The worshipers of Baal, for example, were obliged to cast their firstborn into the flames before Baal's statue in order to escape being punished by disease and famine. Some preachers today demand that gay people throw a life of sexual intimacy into the fire before a vindictive God in order to avoid divine punishment. When some friends of Jesus asked about a particular victim of disease, "Who sinned, the man or his parents?" Jesus answered: "Neither. The works of God will be made manifest in him" (Jn. 9:2-3).

The mistake made by Jesus' friends here was in assuming a direct cause-and- effect connection between one's moral choices and one's circumstances. Jesus points out that the sun shines on the good as well as those who do evil. In his own day Jesus responded to those whose suffering was most conspicuous, namely the lepers, not with righteous judgment but with compassion. When he met the victims of leprosy ( which was for his time and place what AIDS is for us today), he listened to them, touched them, healed them (see Mk. 1:40-45; Lk. 17:11-19).

Many fundamentalists, using the myth of Sodom and Gomorrah as an analogy, see AIDS as God's punishment. They persist in interpreting the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as homosexuality and ignore the clear reference in Scripture to the sin of inhospitality. Ezekiel, in fact, is clear that the sin for which Sodom and Gomorrah was punished by OT God was failure of a wealthy society and in thoughtless ease. "They supported not the poor and the needy..." (Ez. 16;49-50). The real sodomites in our own time are those whose greed and quest for power have brought war and poverty to millions of innocent people. Obviously God has not perfected a new disease to inflict on them.

Those who identify AIDS as God's punishment of homosexuals run the risk of placing themselves in a spiritually dangerous state by separating themselves from those they call sinners. They exhibit the arrogance of the pharisee who boasted, "I am not a sinner"; while the publican genuinely prayed: "Lord, be merciful to me, for I am a sinful man." "Do not judge," Jesus said, " and you shall not be judged."

The AIDS epidemic is another graphic example of the mystery of evil and suffering. Throughout Sacred Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, the most puzzling question is why the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer. We face this same question today.

The AIDS epidemic challenges all of us to reaffirm our faith and trust in God as a loving parent in whom love and mercy, justice and peace embrace. It challenges us to do all we can to relieve the suffering of those afflicted, and to hope and pray that somehow out of the suffering and evil involved, God will bring about greater good.

Ministers and Christians alike should refrain from judgement which, far from expressing the goodness of salvation, serve only to increase fear and prejudice. They should also advocate and lobby for adequate funds to support the kind of research that will discover a cure for AIDS. Moreover, Ministers should seek the training and expertise that will allow them to minster more effectively to persons with AIDS. Those who seek to help gay people with AIDS must first of all ferret out of the homophobia hidden deep in their own psyches. They must also deal on a profound level with their own fears of disease and death. Finally, they must reject the notion of a vindictive God who must be worshiped out of fear.

People with AIDS need above all else someone who is not afraid to touch them; someone willing to listen and who won't run away when they need to ventilate their anger or when they need to share their fear and despair. As Jesus asked his disciples, "Could you not watch one hour with me?" (Mk. 14:37).

Complete Readings on the Topic of Scripture and Homosexuality

This paper is exclusively complied from excepts from the books:

"Christianity, Social Intolerance and Homosexuality," by John Boswell. Chicago and London: University Chicago Press, 1980. John is a Yale University Professor.

"The Church and the Homosexual," third edition, by John McNeil. Beacon Boston Press. John was a Jesuit Priest for nearly forty years.

With background input from the Rev. Sylvia Pennington's invaluable three books on this topic and by Baily's book, "Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition"

Only the introduction and grammatical alterations (verb tenses etc.) were written by me. All the credit goes to the authors just listed above.

© 2005 LINQ Communications