Attempting to live in the Tension: LGBT

The topic of homosexuality has been a difficult and complex topic for quite a while (if you think that it's simple, you may want to close this blog and move on). I thought that I could add to the discussion by including some material that I created while in school a couple of years ago.

My purpose in posting this is to add to the long line of hard work by those in the church who are attempting to navigate this change in our modern culture. In this post I'm not necessarily posting my opinion (I will do that as some point, but not yet), but I hope that I am clearing communicating the attitude with which I approach this: one of patience and compassion (attempting this anyway) with people on both sides - my natural desire on many difficult issues is to bring peace and an understanding of the opposition. Please don't take this as the last word on the subject, or even that the arguments below do the relevant side justice. Earlier today, as I was reading my words below, I thought of many good criticisms and some obvious improvements that could be made (but that have not be done yet)  -- please keep that in mind.

So, what am I posting? Below is a portion of my research for a debate in an ethics class that I took at a Christian university. As is the case in many ethics classes, we were divided up into teams and assigned sides to argue in favor of regarding many topics. This particular piece comes from our debate on homosexuality, in which my team was assigned the task of arguing persuasively in favor of homosexuality from a Christian perspective. Please note that the original paper is much longer - I've only included my own work below, and not the work of my other class mates.


__________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

Homosexuality is one of the most controversial, hurtful, and divisive issues facing the nation and the Church today. It is a subject that will most likely not be settled for quite some time. The goal here is to argue in favor of homosexuality and by extension the entire LGBT community from a Christian perspective. First an attempt will be made to show that a typical “plain reading” of the Bible is harmful and misleading when consulting it for guidance on homosexuality. If it is approached carefully one can come to the conclusion that it does not condemn homosexuality. Second, with the conclusion that condemnation is not appropriate there is a brief plea for a change in how homosexuality is viewed in public life. Third, there will be a practical discussion of how the church should go beyond simply accepting homosexuality, and work with the community to affirm its beauty, value, and significance.

Since the most prominent argument from a Christian ethics perspective against equal rights at a national level, and against the inclusion of the LGBT community into the life of the church is the Bible, scripture is probably the best place to start. Since the Bible is often used to condemn homosexuals, using the Bible to argue in favor of LGBT communities may be a liberating beginning. By referring to the prominent Biblical texts that address this issue, we hope to argue persuasively that, in the very least, homosexuality is not a simple “right” or “wrong,” and that at the very most, it is a gift that should be accepted like any other relationship.

If we go in chronological order, the first set of verses with which to interact is Genesis 19:3-5:

But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom— both young and old— surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

Reading deductively, what kind of sin can we see in this passage? Gang rape and sexual immorality on a large scale, as evidenced by the following story in which Lot’s daughters seduce their father. Using Genesis 19 to describe homosexual sex as sin is a weak inductive argument at best. If we move outside of this passage, what does the Bible say is the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? The Old Testament refers to Sodom thirty-nine times, and the sin mentioned usually never has to do with sexuality. Usually the sin has to do with gross in-hospitality. Jesus refers to Sodom five times and never implies that their sin was sexual in nature. He also refers to sins of inhospitality. Ezekiel 16:49-50 is a good example of an Old Testament text referring to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah:

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.

The NASB translation used here uses the word “abomination” in reference to the people’s failure to help the poor and needy. The use of this word when condemning neglect towards the poor is very important since it is often used to condemn homosexuality.

The second set of verses to address is Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Leviticus 18:22 reads: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” Leviticus 20:13 reads: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Christians ignore most of the commands in Leviticus today. It is believed to be a holiness code that is no longer used today, even though elsewhere in the Bible (specifically in the New Testament) parts of Leviticus are obviously still considered important. So while Leviticus says that homosexuality is prohibited, it also permits polygamy, but prohibits tattoos, eating pigs, crossbreeding animals, and trimming the side of one’s beard. There is also ancient Jewish culture to consider. It was terrible for a Man to be the receiver in sex. The main issue that has to be resolved with these verses is whether the prohibition of homosexual sex was part of the “moral law” or the “purity law.” These are two categories that theologians use to try and make sense of the various Levitical laws, and understand why some are still observed while others seem to have been left behind. The final decision of to which category homosexuality belongs certainly can’t be decided based on these passages. What does this mean? Any passage in Leviticus is never the final word on any topic in the Bible.

With Romans 1:24-27 we move onto the New Testament. Paul writes:

Therefore God gave them up to their lusts, the degrading of their bodies, and serving the creature rather than the creator. …Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural… men giving up… women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

This passage is usually either read in the context of “natural law,” or as a story or narrative of sin from the fall, in which this is a result. Much can be said about this passage and the usual commentary on it. First is the possibility that Paul simply had a limited view of the concept of sexual orientation from an ancient first century perspective. Perhaps for Paul, heterosexual orientation was the only natural way for one to be born, and he could not conceive otherwise. Paul’s limited understanding doesn’t offend the inspiration of the Bible, because the concept of sin and destruction that he is describing is still clear. There are many places in the Bible that evidence this limited understanding of the material world (the concept of the earth being flat, for example) that do not offend its inspiration – the Bible is not a scientific/biological document. The limited kinds of homosexuality that Paul was probably exposed to are pedastery and temple prostitution. Paul was right to condemn these sins; the first describes married men who had sex with boys (who were usually slaves), and the second refers to Greek and Roman idolatry, where thousands of prostitutes were involved in temple worship. Many have argued that these were the only prominent forms of homosexuality at that time; arguments claiming that homosexuality existed outside of these two examples are rare. (Note: this is not in the original paper, but it should also be noted that elsewhere there are some interesting arguments for this passage referring to a temple nearby that worshipped a multi-gendered/oriented divinity -- where people abandoned their 'natural' orientation in order to participate in the full life of the multi-gendered/oriented divine being).

The last text to address is 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, in the context of who will inherit the kingdom: “Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who practice homosexuality nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” It would be enough to point out that like Romans 1, this passage is written by Paul, and we can infer the same arguments regarding a limited understanding of homosexuality versus how it is seen today. If that was all the argument in favor of homosexuality here, it might be enough, but there is more. To add to the complexity, the Greek words that are often translated as “homosexual” can be disputed. The response to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 can center around two words: malokoi and arsenokoitai. Even modern English translations define these in many different ways: “effeminate,” “sexual perverts,” “homosexual perverts,” “liquid,” “cowardly,” “refined,” “weak willed,” “delicate,” gentle,”  “debauched,” and “male prostitutes.” The word “homosexual” did not appear as a translation in this passage until the twentieth century. Also, if the word “malokoi” is translated as “gay” every time it is used, then in Matthew 11:18, Jesus described John the Baptist as one clothed in gay[ness?]. It is obvious that the interpretation of these words is very complex.

Bibliography

1. Johnson, William S., A Time to Embrace Same-Gender Relationships in Religion, Law, and Politics, 2006 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 2006
2. Journal of Northwest Communication Association; Sprint2001, Vol. 30, p94-120, 27p.
3. Church UM, Seminaries NL. HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCHES : A QUEST FOR THE NICENE VISION There seems to be an ecumenical , transdenominational timetable for the American churches to deal with pressing social / ethical issues . The first years of the 1990 ’ s appear to be the time . Assembly. 1993:3-4.
4. Gross M. To Be Christian and Homosexual: From Shame to Identity-Based Claims. Nova Religio. 2008; 11(4):77-101.
5. 1. Carlton C. Sexual reorientation therapy: an orthodox perspective. Christian bioethics. 2004;10(2-3):137-53.
6. Edwards, Julia. "Portraits of a Community." Chicago Tribune 17 Oct. 2010, Final ed., Magazine sec.: 14. Print.
7. Randolph A. Nelson, "Homosexuality and Social Ethics" Atlas Serials. Date of Access 11/2/2010.

_______________________________________________________________________

That is all that I'm including from the original paper.

On a lighter note, here is a cat being vacuumed: