The Five Passages . . .

The first point I wish to examine is sometimes states as:  “Anyone who disagrees with the traditional viewpoint on gay and lesbian relationships is in open rebellion.”

In fact, this simple statement actually consists of a series of underlying premises (A. through D.) leading to a conclusion (E. below):

1. The Bible is absolutely unambiguous on the issue of gay and lesbian relationships.
2. Because the Biblical position is so clear, we know exactly what God thinks of gay and lesbian relationships.
3. Because the position is so clear, this is an area not open to reexamination or debate in the Church.
4. For this reason, those who wish to debate this issue are in open rebellion against God.
5. Thus an honest gay or lesbian who admits to being non-celibate is clearly in open rebellion against God.

As with my retired minister, the historic conservative Protestant viewpoint begins with the belief that the Bible was absolutely unambiguous on the issue of gay and lesbian relationships.  In fact, until recently the viewpoint was probably in the category of unexamined received wisdom in most (if not all) of Christian churches.  

We begin this examination by asking, therefore, whether this belief is justified?  Initially, we examine the five Biblical verses commonly seen as directly on point with respect to gay and lesbian relationships (note that the discussion of Sodom in Genesis 19 occupies its own place, and will be discussed separately).  These verses are: 

• Leviticus 18:22;
• Leviticus 20:13; 
• Romans 1:26-27;
• 1 Corinthians 6:9-11;
• 1 Timothy 1:8–10.

To those who think these texts are definitively condemning of gay and lesbian relationships without exemption, I would respectfully point out that for a subject, the conclusion of which is blanket condemnation, the texts are very light on the ground.  Moreover, in each case, none of the texts are as direct and unambiguous as the prohibitions of adultery and coveting one’s neighbor’s wife found in the 10 Commandments  (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5).  In fact . . .  each of the texts listed is part of a larger work not specifically aimed at gay and lesbian issues.

The Old Testament references in Leviticus are part of the Holiness Code.  Many of the other reasons for stoning people found in the Holiness Code has long since been abandoned by the Christian tradition (e.g. in Deuteronomy 22, a woman who is found not to be virgin upon marriage is to be stoned to death, and adultery results in the death of both guilty parties.)    Moreover, in both Old Testament instances, the offense is described as lieing with “mankind” as with “womankind.”   (Note, this is aimed at men, with no mention of what happens when two women “lie” together.)  Thus, both passages imply the actor has given up women for men - thus there is no hint the writer understood the concept of a homosexual orientation that never was interested in women in the first place.  

The clearest New Testament verse, that in the first chapter of Romans, is part of a longer passage describing the effects of idolatry - Paul’s larger point is that by failing to worship the true God, mankind became confused and degraded.  He describes this degradation as (among other things) leading men to leave the “natural use of women” and burn in lust towards one another.  Again, this is not aimed at homosexuality particularly, but at idolatry . . .  Moreover Paul shows no understanding that the men in this case might be truly homosexual - since they are described as abandoning the use of women.  In fact, Paul does not seem to comprehend that a man might never want the “natural use” of women.

The final two New Testament passages are lists of those not inheriting the Kingdom - which included the fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners (1 Corinthians); as well as the lawless and disobedient, the ungodly, the sinners, the unholy and profane, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, whoremongers, liars, and perjured persons (1 Timothy).   That is, these are what in law we call a “parade of horribles” that Paul is using not aimed at any specific group, but as a general list of the “unrighteous.”  In both cases, Paul uses as part of the parade of horribles some ambiguous Greek words that have been translated through the centuries as referring to gay and lesbian sex. 

From these cobwebs, the early church and the culture of Christendom over its first few centuries wove a strong rope of condemnation.  I have not seen any glimmer of awareness prior to the 20th century that perhaps all humans were not built alike sexually, or that homosexuality was not a choice, but something inherent - like eye color or right-handedness or left-handedness.  . . .   Therefore, do these five passages  definitively answer the question of God’s true thoughts on gay and lesbian relationships? 

To be continued . . . 

Mixed messages . . .

I read a recent article in which Pope Francis is reported to have stated (in the context of whether gay priests should be allowed in the Roman Catholic Church): “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Francis told reporters, speaking in Italian but using the English word 'gay'.” -- as reported by Rachel Donadio, the European Culture Correspondent for the New York Times, in the Times on July 29, 2013.  (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/world/europe/pope-francis-gay-priests.html?_r=0)   I see this as an interesting time to begin a conversation about the Church and gays and lesbians.  

The message the Church has been giving lesbians and gays has become increasingly mixed in the past few years . . .  The quote from Pope Francis was quickly followed (in the article) by an assurance that nothing had changed objectively in Roman Catholic moral teachings, even with the new quote.

The current split message for me can be seen much closer to home.  Fairly recently, a retired minister at the church where I currently attend with my family, gave a sermon in which he also said we should love our gay brothers and sisters.  . . .   Simultaneously, that same retired minister is dead set against any gay or lesbian who is honest about being non-celibate from being allowed official membership in the church.  At a recent meeting of the church board, he voted “no” when asked about the transfer of a member to the church from another congregation, because he knew the woman was in a long-term relationship with another woman, and had adopted a child.  

I talked to him, trying to understand the apparent disconnect between “love them” but “don’t let them be in the church.”   He based it on what he called gays and lesbians “choosing a lifestyle in open rebellion against God.”  . . .  That is, he views any non-celibate gay or lesbian person as engaged in an anti-Biblical lifestyle of intentional sin.  As to the "love" part of his message, he stated that since “we are all sinners,” therefore we can love these people in “open rebellion against God” since no sin is worse than another sin.

On one hand, therefore, the claim is that this issue is so clear cut that anyone disagreeing with the traditional viewpoint is engaging in “rebellion against God” and can’t be in the church.   On the other hand, since we are all sinners, therefore we can love them and accept them as humans.

To my mind, this is an incredibly mixed signal being sent.  As I hear it, the message seems to be something along the lines of - “we are all sinners, but I (although a sinner) can be in the church, and you (although a sinner) can’t - because my sins aren’t open rebellion against God, but yours are.”

I am going to write a series of posts that examine the question of how such a seriously mixed message came to be, and my own thoughts on how to resolve that message in a way that respects both the Christian tradition and the growing recognition (even in the Church) that sexual orientation is a real thing.