The Biblical Arguments

In December 1997, The Baptist Union of Victoria accepted a recommendation that stated, “Applications for ordination from persons involved in homosexual practice will be declined.” As part of their research, the task force surveyed the churches within the Union, and found that 90% said their response was based on scripture.  Seven passages in particular were cited as reasons that the denomination shouldn’t ordain practicing homosexuals, with 34% of the responding churches using them as a basis for not allowing a gay or lesbian person in the door on a Sunday morning for worship. [1]

Any Christian response to homosexuality must draw its basis from the Bible. The Christian canon has been set in place for centuries, and millions of people have copies of the same “Word of God”, in multiple forms. Yet the interpretation of these scriptures is diverse, and sometimes contradictory. When it comes to homosexuality, different interpretations are passionately held and often divisive. In the Baptist Union document, and in the Christian world at large, a handful of passages that span both Testaments form the core of the debate, with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah featuring prominently.

Genesis 19

In the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot entertains two angels. While they are in his home the men of the city converge on Lot’s house demanding that the visitors be released so the crowd so they could have sex with them (Gen 19:5).  By the end of the chapter Lot and his family have been spared, but the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah completely destroyed by God.

The questions of why God destroyed the cities is the basis for much of the disagreement in the homosexual debate. However, in terms of our current understanding of sexual orientation and homosexuality, the story does little to move towards a resolution. In the culture of the time the rape of a defeated enemy was seen as the ultimate humiliation. Women held no social standing and it was considered offensive for males to take on the role of women. Being penetrated sexually by a man was the place of a woman, and so to be raped by a conquering army was the worst expression of humiliation and degradation. [2]

Those that argue for acceptance of monogamous, life-long homosexual relationships point out that the sexual conduct of the men of Soddom and Gomorrah is abhorrent and should never be condoned. Neither should we condone Lot’s actions of offering his daughters to the crowd to satisfy their sexual appetites. But the greater sin in the story, described by the prophet Ezekiel, is one of inhospitality directed toward the angels.

As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:48-49).

Helminiak says that, “The point is abuse and assault. To use this [Genesis] text to condemn homosexuality is to misuse this text.” [3] Gagnon acknowledges that the Soddom and Gomorrah story isn’t particularly helpful in the understanding of modern homosexuality, but as an opponent to “homosex” in any fashion he believes that the form of inhospitality must be taken into account as well. The fact that men wanted to have sex with the strangers points towards male to male sexual relationships being an integral part of the inhospitality and thus offensive in the eyes of God. [4]

Leviticus 18 & 20

Next to the Sodom and Gomorrah story, the Levitical laws regarding sexual practice are the most often used Biblical passages to condemn homosexual practice. Gagnon writes:

There is nothing wrong with men seeking validation of their sexual identity from other males. Yet, when this becomes sexualized, such that one perceives union with a sexual same as self-completion, then something distorted has happened: a denial of the integrity of the sexual self. [5]

There is no “wiggle room” in these passages according to Gagnon nor should we see these laws as being abolished in the life and work of Jesus. When taken into account with the New Testament teaching on sexuality these laws remain firm. Rogers, on the other hand, argues that when taken in their cultural context two things were being addressed. Things that were described as an “abomination” were those that made an Israelite ritually unclean. Mixing with and emulating the Canaanites around them, and in particular the Canaanite ritual sexual practices, made the Hebrew people unclean and was thus to be avoided.  Male superiority was also at stake in the Levitical laws, and to take on the passive (woman’s) role in the homosexual practice disrupted the social order.  While conservative people argue that homosexuality threatens the very fabric of our society there is no evidence that loving homosexual relationships are disruptive to our social structures in the same way that Canaanite practice was to Hebrew culture. To Rogers these passages simply don’t carry the same weight today. [6]

Romans 1

The New Testament texts describe the ways the early church wrestled with trying to live out the infant Christian faith in a world that was hostile to the Kingdom of God. In many ways, despite the 2000 year gap, the letters and narratives of the New Testament speak directly into our modern lives. However, there are still the peculiarities from Greek, Roman and Jewish culture that we need to appreciate before translating Biblical meaning directly to our time.

Paul’s first chapter of the letter to the Romans contains a number of verses that speak of homosexual practice. Paul describes those who have acted contrary to nature as being given over to shameful lust, being of depraved minds and punished accordingly (Romans 1:26-28). Moo makes no distinction between homosexuality of 2000 years ago to the homosexuality of today, and says:

It is clear that Paul depicts homosexual activity as a violation of God’s created order, another indication of the departure from true knowledge and worship of God…God would not allow his created order to be so violated without there being a just punishment. [7]

However, the background against which Paul writes is quite different from ours in terms of our understanding of sexuality. Pederasty was common and refers to the practice of older men taking on adolescent boys in a type of “coaching” relationship to teach them all aspects of being male. A sexual relationship was an expected and normal part of the arrangement, in addition to being married to a woman. When the adolescent became older, it was assumed he would enter into an arrangement with a younger male and the cycle would continue. Despite it being an abusive sexual relationship, this was not paedophilia as is understood today. It was an accepted expression of sexuality in Greek culture, but an expression which Paul taught had no place in the Christian church. Those that had practiced these abusive forms of sexual conduct in the past were to cease and those that had been the “passive participant” were not to be exploited any longer. All were to be treated with dignity and respect in the new community of God’s people. However, the questions remain as to whether Paul’s teaching in Romans allows for committed, mutual, loving homosexual relationships.[8]

Nobody has suggested that we return to the practice of pederasty – it is universally accepted as a form of abuse and would only make worse the pain that many struggle with after being violated as children. One modern expression of homosexuality, however, is between committed, consenting adults. We see gay and lesbian couples that have been together for twenty years or more that display all the love and respect that heterosexual couples do. It is “natural” for those that have discovered an unchangeable, same-sex orientation inherent within themselves, thus falling into a different category to the homosexuality addressed by Paul.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

The Greek word arsenokoites appears in this passage and has been the subject of debate regarding its translation into English. It has been variously translated as “homosexuals” (NLT), “practicing homosexuals” (TNIV), “effeminate” (KJV), and “male prostitutes and sodomites” (NRSV) – each carrying with it connotations gathered from our own time.

How arsenokoites is translated has a large influence on how we read the Corinthians passage. Helminiak concludes that given the sexual promiscuity of Corinth, Paul is talking about some form of abusive sexual relationship and not to homosexual relationships between equals.[9] Gagnon takes an opposing view, and believes that when taken with the wider interpretations of sexuality in scripture, this passage does not allow for homosexual practice today. He says, “Paul made no attempt to regulate positive forms of same sex intercourse because, quite simply, there were none.” [10]

Clearly there is division at the scholarly level, and a simple web search on Amazon will reveal literally hundreds of books that will help a reader justify whatever position they wish to take on homosexuality. But even in this brief discussion it is clear that the Bible does condemn several forms of homosexual practice that were present in Biblical times. All of them were abusive or seen as ritually unclean, but none address the faithful homosexual relationships that have emerged after the recognition of sexual orientation and are common place in our society. The academic and Biblical debates now focus on trying to prove or disprove the changeability of one’s sexual orientation and arguing whether or not all homosexual practice is displeasing to God.

In general, most traditional Christian authors will only condemn the practice of homosexual intercourse (homosex) leaving them in the awkward position of having to make a judgment on exactly what is and isn’t acceptable in a LGBT person’s entire life. For instance, if it is only sexual intercourse that is a sin, it must be quite alright for a homosexual couple to live together, to adopt children, to hold positions of authority in the church and to be married as long as they don’t have sex. Obviously, policing this stance is more than awkward, but it is the logical conclusion from the arguments put forward. The reality of church life is that no other relationship is put under the microscope in such a fashion and doing so to LGBT people unjustly isolates them from the church. Our sexuality and its expression are an inseparable part of our lives and only those given the gift of celibacy should ever attempt to live in that state. Although it’s a popular catch cry in ministry, to the LGBT community it is not possible to “Love the sinner and hate the sin” because that mindset identifies an integral part of a person’s life as sinful.

For the heterosexual person, it is one’s own experience, prejudice and fear that sways the belief and attitude toward homosexuality. For the LGBT person, it is one’s willingness to deal with the consequences of “coming out” that will determine how they live. But can this state of confusion and division be a reflection of how God would have us live, or is there a larger truth that we have ignored as we’ve delved into the intricacies of a few passages of scripture? Can we reconcile how we feel about homosexual practice, how we interpret the Bible and the call to care and love in the same way God does as demonstrated by Jesus?

A Larger Biblical Truth

A pastoral response to homosexuality still needs to be grounded in the Bible, but there is little to be gained in trying to argue from within the texts mentioned above. There is simply too much disagreement, all based on good scholarship, for everyday people to make any sense that will help deal in a positive, pastoral way to those they encounter with a same sex orientation. However, taking a step back and recognizing some larger Biblical truths should help the church identify more fully with the LGBT community and begin a journey together with them.

Truth one: We are all sinners

It doesn’t take a Biblical scholar to know that our world is not as it should be. Crime rates are astronomical, we are under threat from a changing climate, family breakdown is rampant and we still see images of war, poverty and famine on our televisions and in our newspapers every day. The world is not how it was created to be and groans under the weight of humanity and its brokenness (Rom 8:22).

Being an integral part of a broken world means that we are a broken people. Paul clearly states that every person is a sinner and fails to live up to the potential that was built into us at creation (Rom 3:23). This is the reason that Christ died, the most amazing display of love and grace that God could show and that the world has ever seen. If any of us were perfect, then there would have been no need for the cross. But we’re not perfect. Most of us, in those moments of quiet honesty, whisper the words, “Christ came into the world to save sinners – of whom I am the worst” (1 Tim 1:16).

The question that inevitably is asked of me when talking about homosexuality to groups of people is, “Do you think homosexuality is a sin?” I choose not to answer that question as it’s never asked to gain a greater understanding of the LGBT community. Instead I rephrase the question to ask, “Do you think homosexuals are sinners?” Of course I do, in just the same way I am and every other heterosexual person is. This puts us on a level playing field and like the crowd who wanted to execute the woman caught in adultery, makes us drop our stones and walk away to think about those areas of our life that fall well short of God’s standard.

With Jesus, we began to see glimpses of the Kingdom of God break into our world, but we still live in the time of “Now and not yet.” We see the Kingdom, but we don’t see it fully. The image is blurry, but one day it will become clear (1 Cor 13:12). So we live with the inner desire for things to be how they were always meant to be and the outward compromise that is a necessary evil in a fallen world. We hold the sanctity of life as a precious gift, but hold the hands of our teenage girls as they sit at the abortion clinic in tears after terminating an unwanted pregnancy. We hold the sanctity of marriage as a precious gift, but grieve with friends and family as marriages fall to pieces after illicit affairs, betrayal or the painful ordinariness of growing apart. We lift the idea of the equality of all people high, but find ourselves forced into lifestyles that unwittingly oppress people and villages on all sides of the planet. Our children are abused by those who have the responsibility to care for them. We spend millions on wars and conflict, but don’t have enough money to improve our hospitals. Churches build bigger buildings and have the homeless sleeping in their gardens. Rich people race million dollar cars around circuits in exotic locations, while women have to walk for hours to fill their containers with water. Half the world is starving while the other half is on a diet. No matter where we look or what we are involved in, there is no escaping that we are all immersed in the brokenness of a world corrupted by sin, homosexual and heterosexual alike. We can and should  strive for perfection (Matt 5:48), but have very little ground to stand on when it comes to pointing out the faults of others (Matt 7:1-6).

Truth two: We are all being Sanctified

Fortunately, God does not leave us alone in the midst of our wounds and brokenness. The incarnation of Christ  not only demonstrates God’s commitment to walk this journey with us, but to save us from pain and lead us to the place where we will see the Kingdom in all its fullness. Until then, we’ve been left with the Spirit of God to work in us and change us into the people that God wants us to be – the people we were meant to be in the first place. Sanctification is the theological term given to the work of the Spirit in a believer’s life:

Sanctification is the continuing work of the believer, making him or her actually holy. By “holy” here is meant “bearing an actual likeness to God.” Sanctification is a process by which one’s moral condition is brought into conformity with one’s legal status before God. It is a continuation of what was begun in regeneration, when a newness of life was conferred upon and instilled within the believer. In particular, sanctification is the Holy Spirit’s applying to the life of the believer the work done by Jesus Christ. [11]

Scripture emphasizes that sanctification is a work of God (1 Thess 5:23, Eph 5:26, Titus 2:14, Heb 13:20-21), but also points out the responsibility of people of faith to work at deepening their faith and practice (Phil 2:12-13). It suggests a continual movement forward, out of our current position, into a new one that reflects the character of God. Trinitarian theology suggests that sanctification moves us into a state of perfect community with each other and with God, a state that reflects the perfect relationship between the three persons of the Godhead. Whenever new understandings of God are revealed to us through the reading of Scripture, participation in the life of the church, or just through life itself, we are drawn closer to God and reflect his being a little bit more. This is the sanctification of the Spirit at work in our lives. Whenever the Church works through difficult decisions, resolves conflict, or reconciles itself to brothers and sisters in the community, the Spirit is producing sanctification in the life of the Church.

With our tendency to want to discover and know things, rather than let them “be”, the temptation for the Church is to try and work out how the Spirit works in us and what things it needs to change. We have a picture of what a disciple should look like and what “fruit” we expect to see. Pastors, priests and ministers are even assessed on how well they are performing in corporate style reviews, with their performance compared to a list of expected competencies and results. If all the boxes are ticked, then you are performing at the right level and can keep your job! But as the prophet Isaiah writes:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD.  “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts”. (Is 55:8-9)

With our tendency to want to know, comes the tendency to want to box and categorize the way God works. This displays a lack of faith and trust in God as we try to make sure God acts in the way we think God should. But God has never acted in predictable ways and this is often displayed in the sanctification of a believer’s life. While we are all being made holy, God is so vast and so infinite in nature that we can all resemble God and still be totally different. We cannot predict what God is going to do or why. What is required is the faith that God will hold to the promise of working in the lives of those that open themselves to the Spirit. If that work is a change in sexual orientation, then the church should rejoice in what happens. If the work is not a change in sexual orientation but something else, the church should still rejoice, confident in the knowledge that God knows best.

Truth three: We are called to unity

In John 17 Jesus prays for the unity of all believers that reflects the unity of the Son with the Father. The Psalmist describes unity as good, pleasant, precious and a place of blessing (Psalm 133), while the early church in the New Testament wrestled with how to exist in unity with believers from different cultures and traditions (e.g. Acts 15). At the same time, Paul teaches that there is a great diversity in the body of Christ with each part having a unique purpose and role (1 Cor 12).

As happens in many conflicts in the Church, the list of things that the opposing factions have in common is far greater than the list of things they disagree on. LGBT people of faith hold to many conservative theological viewpoints and are often horrified by the promiscuity and militant views that have become stereotypical of the LGBT community. At a meeting of LGBT Christians recently one girl bemoaned how so few in the church would accept her, but how even fewer in the gay community could understand her desire to live a sexually pure, godly life and keep herself for her eventual life partner. Another person shared the story of a gay man who had recently died of AIDS having acquired the disease through a contaminated blood transfusion. On his death bed, the man grieved how most people thought of him as sexually promiscuous even though he was dying a virgin. He’d not had sex with a man or woman and was perhaps the most sexually pure person most people in the room had known.

There is no reason why the traditional church should continue to exclude and isolate the LGBT faith community from its fellowship, given the call to unity in scripture and the common beliefs we share. But there are also additional reasons that the journey should be taken together, based on the differences between the two groups. History is written by the “winners” and there is no doubt that the traditional church has used its muscle against the minority LGBT community. As a result, from that place of oppression, gay Christians have been given a unique insight into the life and work of Jesus. For instance, in discussions with a lesbian woman recently, she shared how in the traditional church, when we read a story of Jesus reaching out to somebody on the fringe, the traditional mindset is to identify with Jesus and reach out to those on the margins in our community. When a gay person reads the same story, they identify with the person on the fringe, having experienced the same sort of ridicule and prejudice at the hands of religious people. They have a very real sense of what it’s like to experience the hand of God reach into their world and embrace them firmly. Grace and forgiveness is all the more real and they carry a perspective on the gospel that the traditional church needs to rehear and relearn, realizing that God uses the despised to speak into the lives of those that are not (1 Cor 1:28).[12]

As already stated, a pastoral response to homosexuality must be biblically based, but also must be based on things that are widely acknowledged to be true. The three truths summarized above are not the basis for any worldwide debate, nor are they dividing whole denominations or causing local congregations to implode. They do, however, state clearly our position as sinners, all of us, before God; the sanctifying work of the Spirit in the lives of all believers; and the call to unity in the body of Christ. There is no basis in these truths for the isolation or persecution of people based on their sexuality. There is strong basis for walking together, learning from each other, despite our minimal differences. And there is a firm platform for engaging in a new discussion with the LGBT community to discern where God is leading the church. It is the purpose of the next section to explore in more detail what a pastoral response could look like based on these larger biblical truths.

A Pastoral Response to Homosexuality

The pastoral response that I am proposing in this paper takes into account pastoral care as a parable of Jesus, plus the biblical truths that we are all sinners, in the process of being sanctified by the Holy Spirit and called to unity in Christ. It acknowledges the difficulties the body of Christ is encountering with the interpretation of a small number of passages, but seeks a way forward on these issues with the LGBT community. In  light of the history of persecution of LGBT people that has been condoned by the Church, I will assume the burden of making the first moves lies with the Church. Being “Parables of Jesus” means that we must be involved in “incarnational mission” that sees us leave our place of comfort and be with those whom we are trying to reach and care for.

A pastoral response to the LGBT community, in some ways, will be no different to any other people group. However, there are unique needs and challenges that are quite foreign to heterosexual people, but which gay people must face all the time. The process of self-awareness leading to coming out, and then exploring and accepting one’s orientation can be a very lonely, traumatic and confusing time for a LGBT person and a time where “travelling companions” are desperately needed. Family members of LGBT people also face their own “coming out” and must wrestle with their feelings and responses to the news that the orientation of someone they love is different. LGBT people from ethnic and religious minorities, as well as the disabled, face enormous obstacles. The elderly are barred from moving into aged care with their life-long, same-sex partners because their status as a couple is legally unrecognized. Of course, those living with HIV/AIDS are treated as the “unclean” of our time. People in all of these situations, both inside and outside the Church, need to be loved and cared for by more than just the LGBT community. All of them need to be free from the oppression and anxiety that has been unfairly placed on them. The love of God, communicated by those from the faith community that care for LGBT people, needs to be told and displayed without fear. This is a pastoral response to homosexuality.

[2] Rogers, J. Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church. (Louisville: WJK Press, 2009) 67

[3] Helminiak, D.A. What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality. (New Mexico: Alamo Square Press, 2000) 47

[4] Gagnon, R.A.J. The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001) 78

[5] Via, D.O. & Gagnon, R.A.J. Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003) 65

[6] Rogers, J. Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality, 69

[7] Moo, D. NICNT The Epistle to the Romans. (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1996) 115-117

[8] Dyer, K. “A Consistent Biblical Approach to (Homo)sexuality” in Edgar B. & Preece, G. (Eds) Whose Homosexuality? Which Authority? Homosexual Practice, Marriage, Ordination and the Church. (Adelaide: ATF Press, 2006) 12-13

[9] Helminiak, D.A. What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality, 113

[10] Via, D.O. & Gagnon, R.A.J. Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views, 86

[11] Erickson, M.J. Christian Theology (2^nd Edition) (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998) 980

[12] As has been the case with feminist and liberation theologians.

More… [1] http://jmm.org.au/articles/25462.htm

[3] http://jmm.org.au/articles/25470.htm

If you or somebody you know would like to tell your story, please don’t hesitate to get in touch: matt[at]lb.org.au

Matt Gloverwww.mattglover.com