The Bible In A Gay Christian's Perspective
Urquico, Jan Paolo
10 October 2012
I – AB Economics-Honors
EN12 S11
QUEER FAITH: The Bible in a Gay Christian’s Perspective
“We treat them [homosexuals] as pariahs, and push them outside our church communities, and thereby we negate the consequence of their baptism and ours. We make them doubt they are children of God, and this must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy. We blame them for something that is becoming increasingly clear they can do little about.”
—Archbishop Desmond Tutu, The Rainbow People of God
Until now, homosexuality has always been a controversy in the Church and among its followers. For some traditional Christians, the words “homosexual” and “Christian” are mutually exclusive, and thus, in their point of view, there …show more content…
cannot be a “homosexual Christian.” Similarly, for traditionalists, homosexuality is a sinful, unnatural, practice and different Bible passages are used to justify these claims. In this day and age, some Christians are becoming more progressive when it comes to their religious and personal beliefs and, consequently, the attitude towards homosexuality and homosexuals is becoming more positive than it was years ago. Although it is still perceived or interpreted as sinful and unnatural by the Church, homosexuality can be argued to be considered acceptable by the Christian society by means of a historical and cultural analysis of the different Bible passages pertaining to it.
This paper aims to present a different way of interpreting the Bible passages, both from the Old and New Testaments, most commonly used against homosexuality and homosexuals. Section I discusses homophobia and how the Church encourages such an attitude through selective literalism (as opposed to historical-cultural analysis) and patriarchy; it also explains, in brief, sexuality, and the two types of interpretation. Section II provides a contrast of the two opposing interpretations, literalist approach and historical-cultural analysis, on the different Old Testament passages pertaining to homosexual behavior. Finally, Section III offers a comparison of the literalist approach and the historical-cultural analysis on the examination of the different New Testament passages referring to homosexual behavior and a summary of all the points presented in favor of this paper’s position.
I. Homophobia and/in the Church: Patriarchy and Selective Literalism
It is perhaps common knowledge nowadays that homosexuality has always existed in the world. In Ancient Greece, homosexual behavior is normal among men and homosexual relationships, in the form of pederasty, are even sought after by the Ancient Greeks. Hence, the concept of homosexuality never existed before since it was regarded as normal as heterosexuality in society, that is, there were no labels. Men who engaged in homosexual behavior then were not considered homosexuals nor were men who engaged in heterosexual activity considered heterosexuals; instead, they were just men. There was no stigma in Ancient Greek society towards homosexuals, and it was only when Europe experienced the Dark Ages that homosexual activity and, consequently, homosexuals were condemned by the Church and regarded as unnatural and immoral. It was in this era that homophobia in Christian society flourished together with other forms of intolerance, such as anti-Semitism, that are still present today (Boswell 5).
According to Archbishop Desmond Tutu, homophobia is anti-feminism and xenophobia combined. It is a hatred of women and the different that urges a patriarchy to reject homosexuals in its community. Additionally, in a patriarchal society, it is well-established that women are considered inferior to men. Thus, a man who acts like a woman, or who lets himself be treated like a woman by another man is deemed to be a shame to the whole community, in which the male species dominates over everything, because he is considered to be degrading the male status in that of a female’s (“For the Bible”). This is perhaps a truth people today do not want to admit and, so turn to the Bible to seek for a metaphysical justification for their prejudices.
Undoubtedly, the Church plays a role in the scheme of patriarchy in society. Different interpretations of Bible passages have been selectively done in favor of the male sex, and perhaps even the Bible was written to favor the one sex over the other. Evidence of this bias, which may be seen throughout in the Scripture, includes the treatment of women as properties that belong to men. Even today, the Church uses selective literalism to remind women that God wants men to be the heads of households, and to remind everyone that the Bible uses “He” to refer to God. Although, the treatment of women today has significantly changed, some notions of sexism that originate from the traditional interpretation of the Bible still remain.
In addition, since heterosexuality was strongly believed to be the only form of normal sexuality, homosexuality was considered to be a perversion. The Church believed homosexuality to be against the Natural Law imposed by God when He created Adam and Eve and commanded them to procreate. Even today, this is the common impression of some Christians who assert that, “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,” and that homosexuality is a choice because God could not have created something that was against His law. While the source of homosexuality is still unclear, Helminiak believes that it is a variation, such as the color of the skin, handedness, and sex (19); hence, homophobia is on the same level as racism and sexism. Like them, homophobia may still be found in society however implicit it may be since centuries of prejudice have imprinted derogatory notions in the minds of people originating from the traditional interpretations of the Church.
This paper will offer a contrast between the literal reading and the historical-cultural reading of the different Bible passages. The former takes the Biblical text for what it is. It follows the "because the Bible says so" logic wherein no other reason is offered, aside from being explicitly stated in the Bible, to justify a situation. The latter offers a close-reading of the text. It considers when and where the text was written and by what kind of person it was written, or what culture the author belongs to. Commenting on literalism, Reverend Dr. Laurence Keene states that:
When someone says to me, 'This is what the Bible says, ' my response to them is, 'No, that’s what the Bible reads. ' It is the struggle to understand context and language and culture and custom that helps us to understand the meaning of what it is saying (“For the Bible”).
II. Homosexuality in the Old Testament
The creation account in Genesis is one of the most commonly misused passages against homosexuals due to the Natural Law that it implies in the text. According to Thompson, there are two general attitudes to consider when tackling sexual ethics—Natural Law and Utilitarianism. The former would be the attitude of traditional Christian churches towards sexuality, while the latter tends to be more secular or progressive. Thompson says that the Utilitarian attitude sees sex as a private act between consenting adults. It is an activity that must not upset any uninvolved party and it must be agreed upon (3). Therefore, this attitude towards sex does not consider homosexual sex, the use of contraception, premarital sex, and the like as immoral because it only sees sex, regardless of the objective, as an activity between two liable people.
In contrast, the Natural Law attitude sees sex as more or less solely procreative; hence, homosexual sex, the use of contraception, masturbation, and other “unusual” sexual acts are considered immoral because they fail to achieve the procreative objective of sex (2). However, Natural Law only considers one end of sex, which is to procreate, and entirely ignores the possibility of sex as an expression of mutual love and affection. Natural Law, therefore, fails to separate animals from humans when it comes to sex because it sees sex only as a means of reproduction. Furthermore, Helminiak asserts that the creation account in Genesis is not about sex, but about the nature of sin, that God created a perfect world but humans exploit it and the world becomes a miserable place to live in. To employ the creation account against homosexuals, Helminiak sates, is a clear misuse of the Bible (101).
In the same way, the story of Sodom in Genesis would probably be the first passage anti-gay Christians would use to condemn homosexuality. It is more often than not that these fundamentalist Christians employ in their churches the literal approach of interpreting the Bible; hence they tend to be more conservative than others. To understand the meaning behind the story of the sin of Sodom, it would be proper to know the passage that has been misused countless of times to condemn homosexuality:
And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them. . . . And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know [yādha] them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man . . . only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof (Holy Bible, Genesis 19:1-8).
The condemnation of homosexuals in this passage is vague. The Fundamentalist argument has been based on the word yādha, which means “to know” but has the connotation “to have intercourse with,” and Lot’s mention of his daughters, “which have not known man” (Helminiak 37; McNeill 42-43). Fundamentalists would argue that the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with Lot’s guests although Lot has already offered his daughters to them, and this brought to the city the wrath of God. However, looking deeper into the meaning of the text would suggest otherwise.
Taking the interpretation of the passage into context, it is possible that the sin of Sodom is inhospitality and not homosexuality (Helminiak 39; McNeill 46). In the passage, it was mentioned that God sent two angels in the form of men to the city of Sodom. Lot welcomed the strangers to the city and offered them food and bed, but the people of Sodom surrounded Lot’s house and demanded that the strangers be brought out and “known” by the men. Instead, Lot offers his daughters to be “known” because the two men are his guests. Helminiak says it must be considered that yādha may not mean “to have intercourse with,” but simply “to know” in its plain sense because Lot is a stranger in Sodom and he has invited other strangers into his house (37).
However, McNeill asserts that yādha may have been used vaguely in the Sodom story after yādha was used another time to connote the virginity of the daughters of Lot (46-47). It must be known that in ancient times, sex may be used to demean another person (Helminiak 38). It is a demonstration of dominance and hierarchy employed by the men of a society. In this case, the men of Sodom may have wanted to have sex with Lot’s guests, but not for physical pleasure but for the pleasure of seeing another person getting humiliated in public. Clearly, the intention of the Sodomites may be considered cruel and wicked because they wish to harm their guests instead of welcoming them into their city. Moreover, in Matthew 10:5-15, Jesus makes an allusion to the sin of Sodom as inhospitality and makes no mention of homosexuality:
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “. . . Whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy, and stay there until you leave. . . . If any one will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town” (qtd. in Helminiak 40).
Similar to the misuse of the story of Sodom, Christians condemning homosexuality commonly reference Leviticus 18:22, which states, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” 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.” At first glance, it may seem that these passages prohibit homosexual practice, warning anyone who does so with death. Fundamentalists believe that these are the strongest passages in the Old Testament that clearly state the immorality of homosexuality. However, Helminiak states that the passages refer to male homosexual practice and make no mention of female homosexual practice (43). Furthermore, these passages have been read selectively and exploited because of its frankness, to be misused against homosexuals.
If, indeed, Leviticus only states the aforementioned passages, then Fundamentalists may have a plausible Biblical argument. However, that is not the case, and the passage must be taken into the context of the whole book of Leviticus, for it and any other passage in Leviticus to make sense. For example, in Leviticus 11:9-12, God forbids the eating of shellfish and calls it an abomination. This makes little sense because the book of Leviticus does not offer the reasons behind the passages and what makes something an abomination.
To gain knowledge of the reasons, the culture of the people mentioned in Leviticus must be understood as opposed to blindly following the passage today when there is a clear incompatibility between the modern culture and the ancient culture. Helminiak offers a historical-critical interpretation of the passages of Leviticus pertaining to homosexual practice. He claims that “homogenital sex” was a ritual of the Gentiles and it was one of the things that differentiated or separated the non-Jews from the Jews at that time. For the Jews, “homogenital sex” was a form of pagan practice performed by non-Jews to revere one of their pagan gods. Hence, a Jew participating in “homogenital sex” meant that he was being unfaithful to his people and convictions (45). Considering this interpretation, it may be asserted that Leviticus intended to keep the Jews strictly Jewish; therefore, any alien practice was considered an abomination to them.
III. Homosexuality in the New Testament
In the New Testament, probably the most established Bible passage used against homosexuals is in Romans:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile [atimias] affections: for even their women did change the natural [physiken] use into that which is against nature [para physin]: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural [physiken] use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly [aschemosyne], and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet (Holy Bible, Romans 1:26-27).
The controversy emerges with what Paul considers to be “natural” or physiken and “unnatural” or para physin. It is important to know what the Greek words physiken and para physin mean and how they were used in the Bible to fully understand what Paul meant in the passage. According to Helminiak and McNeill, God also acts para physin in Romans 11:24; hence, para physin does not mean “unnatural” in an immoral way, rather “unnatural” in an unfamiliar way (65-66; 53). This knowledge poses a great deal of problem for Fundamentalists using the literal method of interpretation because claiming that Paul said homosexual acts are para physin in a sense that they are immoral means that God is also immoral since Paul said that He acted para physin in Romans 11:24.
Yet another set of Greek words must be clarified to truly understand what the passage means. Atimia which is translated into “vile” or “degrading” and aschemosyne which is translated to mean “unseemly” or “shameless” are held in high regard by Fundamentalists who assert that Paul thought of homosexuals to be immoral. Helminiak, however, says that even Paul claims that he himself is in atimia when he mentions that he is considered to be in disgrace because of his devotion to Jesus Christ in 2 Corinthians 6:8 and 11:21 (71). Hence, to be in atimia does not necessarily mean to be immoral. It may be that Paul, because of his Jewish background, thought that male homosexual acts were socially improper considering the Holiness Code in Leviticus, but does not make any judgment on its decency. The same thing applies to the word aschemosyne, which means “shameless” or “unseemly.” Paul is not making any judgment on homosexual acts morally, but he is saying that it is out of place. Helminiak even points out that Paul considered the refusal of a father to give his daughter for marriage to be aschemosyne in 1 Corinthians 7:36 (72).
It is interesting to note that there might be a reference to lesbian sex in the said passage and nowhere else in the Bible. Helminiak, however, disagrees that the line “. . . even their women did exchange natural [physiken] use into which is against nature [para physin]. . .” refers to lesbian sex. He argues that para physin might refer to an uncommon heterosexual practice like, “sex during menstruation, sex with an uncircumcised man, oral sex, heterosexual anal sex, having sex while standing up, or anything that would not be considered the standard way of having sex” (69).
Aside from the passage in Romans, the New Testament also refers to male homosexual sex in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. Like in the Romans controversy, the problem with 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy is the translation of the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. The former is only mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai],” while the latter is found both in the previous passage and in 1 Timothy 1:10, “For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,”as a part of a list of sinners (Martin 117).
Helminiak and McNeill both say that most accurate denotation of the Greek word malakos is “soft,” (88; 52) and, if considered morally, may mean “loose, morally weak, or lacking in self-control” (52).
Thus, there is originally no homosexual connotation attached to the word malakos. However, Martin says that if the English meanings of malakos were to be taken into a wider perspective it would mean the “feminine” or “effeminate” (124). This is where the sexism in Biblical times was prevalent. Acting like a woman was a form of denigration to oneself, and was thus considered inappropriate back then. Hence, men who are malakoi back then were considered an insult to the whole male population. Additionally, McNeill suggests that malakoi, in patriarchal Greek society, was used to refer to general immorality. Moreover, he adds that being or acting feminine does not necessarily make one homosexual; he notes that “Contrary to popular misconception that homosexuals are effeminate, the majority of homosexuals prefer manliness in themselves and in their partners” …show more content…
(52). Similarly, the other Greek word that has been loosely translated to “homosexual” is the word arsenokoites. Helminiak asserts that the word is compound and would be crudely translated into “man-lier” in English. However, Helminiak raises the ambiguousness of the word. He says that aresnokoites may refer to: “a man who is the active partner in intercourse with anyone, female or male. . . . [or] a man who is the active partner in a homogential act” (89). In addition, McNeill asserts that arsenokoites was used to refer to male prostitutes in general, or those related with the veneration of idols (52). McNeill’s assertion may seem more appropriate when taken into the context of a Jew, that is Paul, living with a non-Jewish culture, and, thus, was not contained by the Holiness Code in Leviticus wherein male homosexual practice were considered a form of idolatry.
To conclude, the Bible does not actually condemn homosexuals as traditionalists would think. A closer examination of the Old Testament passages suggests that the sin of Sodom does not have anything to do with homosexuality, and has everything to do with inhospitality; that there is a reason for prohibiting homosexual intercourse in Leviticus which can now be considered outdated like the other prohibitions. Moreover, analyzing the Greek words often mistranslated in the New Testament and bringing them into context would offer a different view on homosexuality that is more positive than viewing the text literally, which poses some problems when taken into the context of the present time. Perhaps a break from literalism may help Christians understand homosexuals better and consequently lessen homophobia among Christians. Furthermore, it may help alleviate or completely erase the patriarchal bigotry against other minorities who are victims of spiritual assault. Truly, if the Church interprets Bible passages historically and culturally, there would perhaps be less prejudice in the world than there was centuries ago. Perhaps God’s purpose for homosexuals is to teach people how to love and accept others no matter who they are instead of condemning them for being different. Archbishop Desmond Tutu asserts that God sees things differently than what some people might think:
I can’t for the life of me imagine that God will say, “I will punish you because you are black, you should have been white; I will punish you because you are a woman, you should have been a man; I will punish you because you are homosexual, you ought to have been heterosexual.” I can’t for the life of me believe that is how God sees things (“For the Bible”).
List of Works Cited
SCHOLARLY BOOKS
Helminiak, Daniel. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. San Francisco: Alamo Square, 1994.
Martin, David. “Arsenokoites and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences.” Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality. Ed. Robert Brawley. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996.
McNeill, John. The Church and the Homosexual. Boston: Beacon, 1988
DOCUMENTS/VERTICAL FILES
For the Bible Tells Me So. Dir. Daniel Karslake. Gene Robinson, Desmond Tutu, Mel White, and Jake Reitan. FRF Studios, 2007.
SPECIALIZED REFERENCE MATERIALS
Thompson, Mel. “Sexual Morality: Christian Demands and Modern Attitudes.” Philosophy and Ethics: Books, Ideas, and Images from Mel Thompson. 7 Jul. 2012 <http://www.mel-thompson.co.uk/lecture%20notes/Sexual%20Morality.pdf>.
WEBSITES
The Official King James Bible Online. Nov. 2007. 29 Jul. 2012 <
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org>.
10 October 2012
I – AB Economics-Honors
EN12 S11
QUEER FAITH: The Bible in a Gay Christian’s Perspective
“We treat them [homosexuals] as pariahs, and push them outside our church communities, and thereby we negate the consequence of their baptism and ours. We make them doubt they are children of God, and this must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy. We blame them for something that is becoming increasingly clear they can do little about.”
—Archbishop Desmond Tutu, The Rainbow People of God
Until now, homosexuality has always been a controversy in the Church and among its followers. For some traditional Christians, the words “homosexual” and “Christian” are mutually exclusive, and thus, in their point of view, there …show more content…
cannot be a “homosexual Christian.” Similarly, for traditionalists, homosexuality is a sinful, unnatural, practice and different Bible passages are used to justify these claims. In this day and age, some Christians are becoming more progressive when it comes to their religious and personal beliefs and, consequently, the attitude towards homosexuality and homosexuals is becoming more positive than it was years ago. Although it is still perceived or interpreted as sinful and unnatural by the Church, homosexuality can be argued to be considered acceptable by the Christian society by means of a historical and cultural analysis of the different Bible passages pertaining to it.
This paper aims to present a different way of interpreting the Bible passages, both from the Old and New Testaments, most commonly used against homosexuality and homosexuals. Section I discusses homophobia and how the Church encourages such an attitude through selective literalism (as opposed to historical-cultural analysis) and patriarchy; it also explains, in brief, sexuality, and the two types of interpretation. Section II provides a contrast of the two opposing interpretations, literalist approach and historical-cultural analysis, on the different Old Testament passages pertaining to homosexual behavior. Finally, Section III offers a comparison of the literalist approach and the historical-cultural analysis on the examination of the different New Testament passages referring to homosexual behavior and a summary of all the points presented in favor of this paper’s position.
I. Homophobia and/in the Church: Patriarchy and Selective Literalism
It is perhaps common knowledge nowadays that homosexuality has always existed in the world. In Ancient Greece, homosexual behavior is normal among men and homosexual relationships, in the form of pederasty, are even sought after by the Ancient Greeks. Hence, the concept of homosexuality never existed before since it was regarded as normal as heterosexuality in society, that is, there were no labels. Men who engaged in homosexual behavior then were not considered homosexuals nor were men who engaged in heterosexual activity considered heterosexuals; instead, they were just men. There was no stigma in Ancient Greek society towards homosexuals, and it was only when Europe experienced the Dark Ages that homosexual activity and, consequently, homosexuals were condemned by the Church and regarded as unnatural and immoral. It was in this era that homophobia in Christian society flourished together with other forms of intolerance, such as anti-Semitism, that are still present today (Boswell 5).
According to Archbishop Desmond Tutu, homophobia is anti-feminism and xenophobia combined. It is a hatred of women and the different that urges a patriarchy to reject homosexuals in its community. Additionally, in a patriarchal society, it is well-established that women are considered inferior to men. Thus, a man who acts like a woman, or who lets himself be treated like a woman by another man is deemed to be a shame to the whole community, in which the male species dominates over everything, because he is considered to be degrading the male status in that of a female’s (“For the Bible”). This is perhaps a truth people today do not want to admit and, so turn to the Bible to seek for a metaphysical justification for their prejudices.
Undoubtedly, the Church plays a role in the scheme of patriarchy in society. Different interpretations of Bible passages have been selectively done in favor of the male sex, and perhaps even the Bible was written to favor the one sex over the other. Evidence of this bias, which may be seen throughout in the Scripture, includes the treatment of women as properties that belong to men. Even today, the Church uses selective literalism to remind women that God wants men to be the heads of households, and to remind everyone that the Bible uses “He” to refer to God. Although, the treatment of women today has significantly changed, some notions of sexism that originate from the traditional interpretation of the Bible still remain.
In addition, since heterosexuality was strongly believed to be the only form of normal sexuality, homosexuality was considered to be a perversion. The Church believed homosexuality to be against the Natural Law imposed by God when He created Adam and Eve and commanded them to procreate. Even today, this is the common impression of some Christians who assert that, “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,” and that homosexuality is a choice because God could not have created something that was against His law. While the source of homosexuality is still unclear, Helminiak believes that it is a variation, such as the color of the skin, handedness, and sex (19); hence, homophobia is on the same level as racism and sexism. Like them, homophobia may still be found in society however implicit it may be since centuries of prejudice have imprinted derogatory notions in the minds of people originating from the traditional interpretations of the Church.
This paper will offer a contrast between the literal reading and the historical-cultural reading of the different Bible passages. The former takes the Biblical text for what it is. It follows the "because the Bible says so" logic wherein no other reason is offered, aside from being explicitly stated in the Bible, to justify a situation. The latter offers a close-reading of the text. It considers when and where the text was written and by what kind of person it was written, or what culture the author belongs to. Commenting on literalism, Reverend Dr. Laurence Keene states that:
When someone says to me, 'This is what the Bible says, ' my response to them is, 'No, that’s what the Bible reads. ' It is the struggle to understand context and language and culture and custom that helps us to understand the meaning of what it is saying (“For the Bible”).
II. Homosexuality in the Old Testament
The creation account in Genesis is one of the most commonly misused passages against homosexuals due to the Natural Law that it implies in the text. According to Thompson, there are two general attitudes to consider when tackling sexual ethics—Natural Law and Utilitarianism. The former would be the attitude of traditional Christian churches towards sexuality, while the latter tends to be more secular or progressive. Thompson says that the Utilitarian attitude sees sex as a private act between consenting adults. It is an activity that must not upset any uninvolved party and it must be agreed upon (3). Therefore, this attitude towards sex does not consider homosexual sex, the use of contraception, premarital sex, and the like as immoral because it only sees sex, regardless of the objective, as an activity between two liable people.
In contrast, the Natural Law attitude sees sex as more or less solely procreative; hence, homosexual sex, the use of contraception, masturbation, and other “unusual” sexual acts are considered immoral because they fail to achieve the procreative objective of sex (2). However, Natural Law only considers one end of sex, which is to procreate, and entirely ignores the possibility of sex as an expression of mutual love and affection. Natural Law, therefore, fails to separate animals from humans when it comes to sex because it sees sex only as a means of reproduction. Furthermore, Helminiak asserts that the creation account in Genesis is not about sex, but about the nature of sin, that God created a perfect world but humans exploit it and the world becomes a miserable place to live in. To employ the creation account against homosexuals, Helminiak sates, is a clear misuse of the Bible (101).
In the same way, the story of Sodom in Genesis would probably be the first passage anti-gay Christians would use to condemn homosexuality. It is more often than not that these fundamentalist Christians employ in their churches the literal approach of interpreting the Bible; hence they tend to be more conservative than others. To understand the meaning behind the story of the sin of Sodom, it would be proper to know the passage that has been misused countless of times to condemn homosexuality:
And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them. . . . And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know [yādha] them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man . . . only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof (Holy Bible, Genesis 19:1-8).
The condemnation of homosexuals in this passage is vague. The Fundamentalist argument has been based on the word yādha, which means “to know” but has the connotation “to have intercourse with,” and Lot’s mention of his daughters, “which have not known man” (Helminiak 37; McNeill 42-43). Fundamentalists would argue that the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with Lot’s guests although Lot has already offered his daughters to them, and this brought to the city the wrath of God. However, looking deeper into the meaning of the text would suggest otherwise.
Taking the interpretation of the passage into context, it is possible that the sin of Sodom is inhospitality and not homosexuality (Helminiak 39; McNeill 46). In the passage, it was mentioned that God sent two angels in the form of men to the city of Sodom. Lot welcomed the strangers to the city and offered them food and bed, but the people of Sodom surrounded Lot’s house and demanded that the strangers be brought out and “known” by the men. Instead, Lot offers his daughters to be “known” because the two men are his guests. Helminiak says it must be considered that yādha may not mean “to have intercourse with,” but simply “to know” in its plain sense because Lot is a stranger in Sodom and he has invited other strangers into his house (37).
However, McNeill asserts that yādha may have been used vaguely in the Sodom story after yādha was used another time to connote the virginity of the daughters of Lot (46-47). It must be known that in ancient times, sex may be used to demean another person (Helminiak 38). It is a demonstration of dominance and hierarchy employed by the men of a society. In this case, the men of Sodom may have wanted to have sex with Lot’s guests, but not for physical pleasure but for the pleasure of seeing another person getting humiliated in public. Clearly, the intention of the Sodomites may be considered cruel and wicked because they wish to harm their guests instead of welcoming them into their city. Moreover, in Matthew 10:5-15, Jesus makes an allusion to the sin of Sodom as inhospitality and makes no mention of homosexuality:
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “. . . Whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy, and stay there until you leave. . . . If any one will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town” (qtd. in Helminiak 40).
Similar to the misuse of the story of Sodom, Christians condemning homosexuality commonly reference Leviticus 18:22, which states, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” 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.” At first glance, it may seem that these passages prohibit homosexual practice, warning anyone who does so with death. Fundamentalists believe that these are the strongest passages in the Old Testament that clearly state the immorality of homosexuality. However, Helminiak states that the passages refer to male homosexual practice and make no mention of female homosexual practice (43). Furthermore, these passages have been read selectively and exploited because of its frankness, to be misused against homosexuals.
If, indeed, Leviticus only states the aforementioned passages, then Fundamentalists may have a plausible Biblical argument. However, that is not the case, and the passage must be taken into the context of the whole book of Leviticus, for it and any other passage in Leviticus to make sense. For example, in Leviticus 11:9-12, God forbids the eating of shellfish and calls it an abomination. This makes little sense because the book of Leviticus does not offer the reasons behind the passages and what makes something an abomination.
To gain knowledge of the reasons, the culture of the people mentioned in Leviticus must be understood as opposed to blindly following the passage today when there is a clear incompatibility between the modern culture and the ancient culture. Helminiak offers a historical-critical interpretation of the passages of Leviticus pertaining to homosexual practice. He claims that “homogenital sex” was a ritual of the Gentiles and it was one of the things that differentiated or separated the non-Jews from the Jews at that time. For the Jews, “homogenital sex” was a form of pagan practice performed by non-Jews to revere one of their pagan gods. Hence, a Jew participating in “homogenital sex” meant that he was being unfaithful to his people and convictions (45). Considering this interpretation, it may be asserted that Leviticus intended to keep the Jews strictly Jewish; therefore, any alien practice was considered an abomination to them.
III. Homosexuality in the New Testament
In the New Testament, probably the most established Bible passage used against homosexuals is in Romans:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile [atimias] affections: for even their women did change the natural [physiken] use into that which is against nature [para physin]: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural [physiken] use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly [aschemosyne], and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet (Holy Bible, Romans 1:26-27).
The controversy emerges with what Paul considers to be “natural” or physiken and “unnatural” or para physin. It is important to know what the Greek words physiken and para physin mean and how they were used in the Bible to fully understand what Paul meant in the passage. According to Helminiak and McNeill, God also acts para physin in Romans 11:24; hence, para physin does not mean “unnatural” in an immoral way, rather “unnatural” in an unfamiliar way (65-66; 53). This knowledge poses a great deal of problem for Fundamentalists using the literal method of interpretation because claiming that Paul said homosexual acts are para physin in a sense that they are immoral means that God is also immoral since Paul said that He acted para physin in Romans 11:24.
Yet another set of Greek words must be clarified to truly understand what the passage means. Atimia which is translated into “vile” or “degrading” and aschemosyne which is translated to mean “unseemly” or “shameless” are held in high regard by Fundamentalists who assert that Paul thought of homosexuals to be immoral. Helminiak, however, says that even Paul claims that he himself is in atimia when he mentions that he is considered to be in disgrace because of his devotion to Jesus Christ in 2 Corinthians 6:8 and 11:21 (71). Hence, to be in atimia does not necessarily mean to be immoral. It may be that Paul, because of his Jewish background, thought that male homosexual acts were socially improper considering the Holiness Code in Leviticus, but does not make any judgment on its decency. The same thing applies to the word aschemosyne, which means “shameless” or “unseemly.” Paul is not making any judgment on homosexual acts morally, but he is saying that it is out of place. Helminiak even points out that Paul considered the refusal of a father to give his daughter for marriage to be aschemosyne in 1 Corinthians 7:36 (72).
It is interesting to note that there might be a reference to lesbian sex in the said passage and nowhere else in the Bible. Helminiak, however, disagrees that the line “. . . even their women did exchange natural [physiken] use into which is against nature [para physin]. . .” refers to lesbian sex. He argues that para physin might refer to an uncommon heterosexual practice like, “sex during menstruation, sex with an uncircumcised man, oral sex, heterosexual anal sex, having sex while standing up, or anything that would not be considered the standard way of having sex” (69).
Aside from the passage in Romans, the New Testament also refers to male homosexual sex in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. Like in the Romans controversy, the problem with 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy is the translation of the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. The former is only mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai],” while the latter is found both in the previous passage and in 1 Timothy 1:10, “For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,”as a part of a list of sinners (Martin 117).
Helminiak and McNeill both say that most accurate denotation of the Greek word malakos is “soft,” (88; 52) and, if considered morally, may mean “loose, morally weak, or lacking in self-control” (52).
Thus, there is originally no homosexual connotation attached to the word malakos. However, Martin says that if the English meanings of malakos were to be taken into a wider perspective it would mean the “feminine” or “effeminate” (124). This is where the sexism in Biblical times was prevalent. Acting like a woman was a form of denigration to oneself, and was thus considered inappropriate back then. Hence, men who are malakoi back then were considered an insult to the whole male population. Additionally, McNeill suggests that malakoi, in patriarchal Greek society, was used to refer to general immorality. Moreover, he adds that being or acting feminine does not necessarily make one homosexual; he notes that “Contrary to popular misconception that homosexuals are effeminate, the majority of homosexuals prefer manliness in themselves and in their partners” …show more content…
(52). Similarly, the other Greek word that has been loosely translated to “homosexual” is the word arsenokoites. Helminiak asserts that the word is compound and would be crudely translated into “man-lier” in English. However, Helminiak raises the ambiguousness of the word. He says that aresnokoites may refer to: “a man who is the active partner in intercourse with anyone, female or male. . . . [or] a man who is the active partner in a homogential act” (89). In addition, McNeill asserts that arsenokoites was used to refer to male prostitutes in general, or those related with the veneration of idols (52). McNeill’s assertion may seem more appropriate when taken into the context of a Jew, that is Paul, living with a non-Jewish culture, and, thus, was not contained by the Holiness Code in Leviticus wherein male homosexual practice were considered a form of idolatry.
To conclude, the Bible does not actually condemn homosexuals as traditionalists would think. A closer examination of the Old Testament passages suggests that the sin of Sodom does not have anything to do with homosexuality, and has everything to do with inhospitality; that there is a reason for prohibiting homosexual intercourse in Leviticus which can now be considered outdated like the other prohibitions. Moreover, analyzing the Greek words often mistranslated in the New Testament and bringing them into context would offer a different view on homosexuality that is more positive than viewing the text literally, which poses some problems when taken into the context of the present time. Perhaps a break from literalism may help Christians understand homosexuals better and consequently lessen homophobia among Christians. Furthermore, it may help alleviate or completely erase the patriarchal bigotry against other minorities who are victims of spiritual assault. Truly, if the Church interprets Bible passages historically and culturally, there would perhaps be less prejudice in the world than there was centuries ago. Perhaps God’s purpose for homosexuals is to teach people how to love and accept others no matter who they are instead of condemning them for being different. Archbishop Desmond Tutu asserts that God sees things differently than what some people might think:
I can’t for the life of me imagine that God will say, “I will punish you because you are black, you should have been white; I will punish you because you are a woman, you should have been a man; I will punish you because you are homosexual, you ought to have been heterosexual.” I can’t for the life of me believe that is how God sees things (“For the Bible”).
List of Works Cited
SCHOLARLY BOOKS
Helminiak, Daniel. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. San Francisco: Alamo Square, 1994.
Martin, David. “Arsenokoites and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences.” Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality. Ed. Robert Brawley. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996.
McNeill, John. The Church and the Homosexual. Boston: Beacon, 1988
DOCUMENTS/VERTICAL FILES
For the Bible Tells Me So. Dir. Daniel Karslake. Gene Robinson, Desmond Tutu, Mel White, and Jake Reitan. FRF Studios, 2007.
SPECIALIZED REFERENCE MATERIALS
Thompson, Mel. “Sexual Morality: Christian Demands and Modern Attitudes.” Philosophy and Ethics: Books, Ideas, and Images from Mel Thompson. 7 Jul. 2012 <http://www.mel-thompson.co.uk/lecture%20notes/Sexual%20Morality.pdf>.
WEBSITES
The Official King James Bible Online. Nov. 2007. 29 Jul. 2012 <
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org>.