-
Archive of "The Gay Posts" Category
A response to a response to pro-gay thinking
Hopefully tomorrow we’ll get back to the Scriptures; I want to look further at what Jesus and Paul say about the Christian’s relationship to the Law to see if there is a consistent standard by which we can determine what is acceptable behavior for a Christ follower. Today, though, I wanted to respond to a Facebook message I received from a friend. He says,“Matt, I will be praying for you in your struggle. In response to your recent blog posts attempting to justify homosexuality in the Word, I ask that you read this article:
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4219039/k.F893/Homosexual_Theology.htm“As always, I appreciate anyone’s prayers, and certainly the polite expression of concern. I would say, however, that this is no longer a struggle for me. Not at this point anyway. Unless someone comes forward with something I hadn’t considered or read regarding Christian faith and homosexuality, I would say most days I am at peace over the issue for the first time in my life. The struggle seems to be on the part of some of my past acquaintances who are scratching their heads at how Matt Rogers could have so lost his mind. I can understand that. If a friend had done this a couple years back, I would have been scratching my head at them too.
As requested, I read the article I was sent. It’s by some guy named Kirby Anderson at PROBE Ministries (I think it’s okay to snicker, I did).
Of the Sodom story in Genesis 19, Anderson writes,
“One of the keys to understanding this passage is the proper translation of the Hebrew word for ‘know.’ Pro-homosexuality commentators point out that this word can also mean ‘to get acquainted with’ as well as mean ‘to have intercourse with.’ In fact, the word appears over 943 times in the Old Testament, and only 12 times does it mean ‘to have intercourse with.’ Therefore, they conclude that the sin of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality.”
Anderson goes on to say that statistics alone should not determine the meaning of a word in Scripture. I think he’s right. And in the few thousand pages of reading I did on this topic over two years I heard other anti-gay commentators suggest that some pro-gay theologians make the claim that “to know” in the Sodom story doesn’t involve sex. However, I never found any pro-gay theologian who in fact argued for this interpretation. I sometimes wonder if Anderson and others of a similar mind float these ideas to discredit pro-gay folks, but that’s my cynicism talking. At any rate, I don’t know of anyone who seriously supports the idea that Sodom is not about sex. Of course it is. But it’s about gang rape, not sex within a committed relationship. To treat Genesis 19 as a blanket prohibition against gay sex, given the brutal nature of what’s happening in the story, is terribly dishonest. And I think most theologians would say Jude’s mention of “strange flesh” references the fact that the Sodom visitors were angelic beings, not that the men of the town were desiring gay sex.
Next, Anderson takes on the Levitical proscriptions and the assertion by many people, not just gay theologians, that Christians are not bound to keep the Old Testament Law.
“If the Mosaic law is irrelevant to homosexuality, then it is also irrelevant to having sex with animals or having sex with children. More to the point, to say that the Mosaic law has ended is not to say that God has no laws or moral codes for mankind. Even though the ceremonial law has passed, the moral law remains.”
Anderson is getting to the heart (though he doesn’t seem to realize it) of what confuses many, many Christians. How do we determine what we keep from the Old Testament Law and what we set aside in the New Testament era. That’s where we’re headed next, to see what Jesus and Paul say about this. For the first time in my life, I feel like I have a consistent standard for making those judgments. Anderson’s standard seems to be the old “moral law versus ceremonial law” argument. The problem with that approach is two-fold. One, it is unclear whether ancient Israel made any such distinction. Quite likely, this is a contemporary invention we created to try to settle this very question: what of the Law do we follow? Second, since the Bible contains no guidelines for determining what is moral (eternal) law and what is ceremonial (temporary) law, it is left to folks like Anderson to decide for us. Convenient for Anderson.
As for Romans, Anderson deals only briefly with it, taking a decidedly traditional approach to the passage but never once addressing the questions and objections of those who hold a differing view. And I think those questions and objections are good ones worthy of an honest treatment. Anderson offers none.
Anderson moves on to the 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy passages. He does not address (or, indeed, even acknowledge) the uncertainty of interpretation inherent in the words malakoi and arsenokoitai. Is he even aware of this debate among scholars? It’s impossible to tell from what he has written. At any rate, he offers no response. Anderson says,
“Pro-homosexual commentators make use of the ‘abuse’ argument and point out that Paul is only singling out homosexual offenders. In other words, they argue that the Apostle Paul is condemning homosexual abuse rather than responsible homosexual behavior. In essence, these commentators are suggesting that Paul is calling for temperance rather than abstinence. While this could be a reasonable interpretation for drinking wine (don’t be a drunkard), it hardly applies to other sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6 or 1 Timothy 1. Is Paul calling for responsible adultery or responsible prostitution? Is there such a thing as moral theft and swindling? Obviously the argument breaks down.”
Anderson misses the point that every other sin in the vice lists involves some exploitive, deceitful, or otherwise harmful characteristic. If malakoi and arsenokoitai do not, then they are alone in the passages and rather out of place, since gay sex within a committed relationship doesn’t seem to cause any demonstrable harm. And since Anderson doesn’t tell us how he arrived at his interpretation of these two Greek terms, we have no way of knowing why he thinks they do not involve an abusive aspect of the sexual culture in which Paul was living.
Anderson then goes into a lengthy rebuke of the “born this way” argument. I don’t believe I have ever suggested people are born gay because, honestly, I have no idea what causes homosexuality. Could be nature; could be nurture; could be some mix of factors; could be different in different people. Who knows? I don’t, and neither does Anderson, and since I’ve never argued that people are born gay, I’ll pass on responding to what he says.
Okay, back to the Scriptures next time …
The “choice” to be gay
Thank you to everyone who has been respectful of my wish to keep my Facebook wall clean of discussion on this topic. Those of you who have felt the need to respond have, at least lately, been (a) very polite in responding even when disagreeing, and (b) have emailed or Facebook messaged your comments rather than posting them on my wall. I appreciate it.I received an email this evening that I wanted to take a few moments to respond to because it raises an issue I’ve been thinking much about lately. The person gave their name, but I’m not sure if they intended I use it, so I will call this person Mark for no reason other than it is the first name that came to mind.
“I read a couple of your blog posts about being gay and you continually mention how you believe being gay is ‘not’ a choice, rather you are born gay. What would you say to those people who seem to grow up having a same sex attraction, then end up realizing the love of Jesus, and marry a woman? These people choose a life of heterosexuality. If they can choose to be heterosexual, how can it be argued that being gay is ‘not’ a choice. I believe it very possible for one to tell themselves something long enough to the point of actually believing it.”
Thank you, Mark, for you question and comments. I must say, I’m somewhat shocked by the number of responses I’ve received that have suggested (or outright declared) that being gay is a choice. Whether it was my friend who fired off, “You’re gay because you’ve chosen to be,” or something more subtle, such as the above email, I’m truly shocked. I guess I thought it was understood today that people don’t choose to be gay.
And that is my first point. I believe Mark is conflating attractions with the choice to act on those attractions. Being gay and having a gay relationship are not the same thing. Back to that point in a moment. Second, I don’t believe anywhere in these posts have I ever said I or anyone else was “born gay.” I have no idea why I or anyone else is gay. (Neither does Lady Gaga.) I used to think maybe parental and peer influences early in life caused people to be gay. I no longer have any idea, and I suspect the causes of homosexuality may vary greatly from person to person. We’ve gotten stuck in a debate of nature versus nurture. What if it’s a confusing mix of causes? Why does it have to be one cause for all? Mark suggests a false dichotomy, that if you aren’t born gay then you chose to be gay. No, there are many factors in life beyond my control that contribute to what I feel and think. I didn’t always choose the outcome of those factors, but in some cases, I’m stuck with them.
Mark asks, “What would you say to those people who seem to grow up having a same sex attraction, then end up realizing the love of Jesus, and marry a woman? These people choose a life of heterosexuality.” I’m glad he asked because in just the short eight months I’ve lived in Charlotte, I’ve met three gay men in separate social groups who once were married to a woman. In each case, divorce was the end result because the man wasn’t straight. Yes, as Mark says, they “chose a life of heterosexuality.” They chose to act as though they were heterosexual. But they weren’t! They were gay. They were behaving, to use a Pauline term, para physin. They were behaving contrary to the nature of a gay person, having rote sex with a person they liked on some level but didn’t really love. Some Christians will say, “Well, every marriage goes through times where the couple barely likes each other, much less loves each other.” Yes, but do we set this up as an example to revere and follow? I sure hope not. Yet, I hear of churches encouraging gay people to marry someone of the opposite sex because every relationship “requires work.” Folks, finding your spouse sexually desirable on your wedding night should not “require work.”
To be fair, I do have a friend who, though attracted to men sexually, chose to marry a woman, and it seems to have been a good thing. He was completely upfront with his then-girlfriend about his situation, so both entered the marriage with full disclosure. It has thus far proven successful. (Note: this friend is not a Christian and did not marry out of religious conviction or a “need” to be “normal.” He simply felt he was better completed emotionally by a woman than by a man.)
Does this mean everyone can or should try to make such an arrangement work? I can only imagine how many women have been put through loveless marriages because their churches answered that question, “Yes.” Let me ask you straight folks, particularly you straight fellas, to close your eyes and imagine making out with a person of the same sex. I mean, you’re really going at it. Lots of tongue.
Now imagine having sex with that person. Again, you’re really going at it.
Thrown up yet? How many of you could make a marriage like that work? My guess is, though you’d never admit it, a few of you would say, “Yeah, if I had to, sure.” You’re not repulsed entirely by the prospect, but success would “require work,” to say the least. Should the fact that a very few of you could make such a marriage work lead us to suggest that everyone could make it work? Should the fact that you straight fellas “chose a life of homosexuality” lead us to conclude that you were now gay? It’s absurd. You’re as straight as you ever were. You’re just acting para physin, contrary to what would be expected of a straight person.
The fear of loneliness, the hunger for sexual intimacy, and the craving for acceptance among our peer groups are so intense, some of us are capable of almost anything, including marrying someone with whom we’re not the least compatible. Doesn’t mean gay people who do this have suddenly turned straight. Behaving and being are often separate experiences entirely.
Mark in his email says, “I believe it very possible for one to tell themselves something long enough to the point of actually believing it.” I agree, and some in the church have been doing just that for a very long time.
Homosexuality: Jesus on the Law
What would Jesus say to and about gay people today? What would he say to people, like me, who call ourselves “gay Christians”? Would he say, “Right on, man!” as some assure us? Would he say “gay Christian” is a contradiction in terms, as others assure us? If neither of those two options are right, what is? What would Jesus say? I suspect the answer is less clear than some would like to believe.Further, how do we settle on a consistent standard for deciding what is sin and what isn’t in cases where Scripture isn’t clear? In other words, how do we end the picking and choosing from parts of the Bible? We would all agree that cheating on your wife is wrong, but we don’t all agree that homosexual acts are wrong, depending on their context. Why? And what do we do about that disagreement within the church? Can we ever find a path toward settling the matter?
As with our look at Romans, this latest topic will probably play out over several blog posts because I don’t want these things getting too long.
The Pharisees were not exactly honest in their assertion that they were simply concerned about righteousness and the appearance that Jesus and his disciples were violating the Law. The Pharisees were jealous of Jesus. They felt threatened by him. They wanted to get rid of him. They actively plotted his murder while arguing with him about what the Old Testament Law said and how to fulfill its requirements. Still, I think their objections to Jesus and his responses are worth examining.
MATTHEW 12
1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
The Sabbath, I’m sure you know, was very serious stuff to first century Jews. It remains so for many today. Work was strictly prohibited. The Old Testament penalty was death. Yes, death. Like I said, this was serious stuff. Jesus’ disciples are picking heads of grain like it’s no big deal, and the Pharisees are incensed. Why do they blatantly defy one of the most serious laws, one of the “big ones,” one of the Ten Commandments? And in case you don’t think God took the Sabbath as seriously as his people did, consider this brief account from Numbers 15.
32 While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.
Twice it says God commanded the punishment of death. So the Pharisees in Jesus’ time would seem to have been on solid ground questioning the apparent Sabbath violation of Jesus’ disciples. “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.” Jesus’ response?
3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
One could spend a lifetime pondering what Jesus says, and what he doesn’t say to the Pharisees. As a friend pointed out, he doesn’t say, “Oh it was just a few harmless heads of grain. That’s not technically working, so no violation of the Sabbath has occurred.” He seems to agree that his disciples may have technically violated the Law because he points to an even greater infraction on the part of King David from the Old Testament. “Haven’t you ever heard what he did?” Taking the consecrated bread from the house of God? Major no-no, even if you’re hungry, and a far more serious matter than eating some unconsecrated heads of grain. A strict obedience to the Law would never have considered doing such a thing. David did, and Jesus says he was innocent (!), as were his disciples: “If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.”
Wow, apparently you can break the Law and be innocent. But what is the standard for doing so? How do you know whether your setting aside of the Law is anything other than rebellion (I suspect defiance was the case in the Numbers account, and thus, the stoning)? In a parallel account of the Matthew story, Jesus says, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). That was his standard, it seems. The Law is made for man, not man for the Law. Does this mean that, if at any point the Law can be shown to hurt rather than help, it is acceptable to set the Law aside? If the choice is between mercy and sacrifice, do we always go with what Jesus said, that God desires mercy, not sacrifice? I realize this is risky business because we humans are good at convincing ourselves any restriction is a hindrance, but Jesus said what he said. Did he not mean it? And seriously, we can all imagine scenarios where a strict observance of the Law would hurt rather than help human beings, where sacrifice would negate mercy.
Nazi officer: Are you hiding Jews in your basement?
German citizen: Well, I wish I could lie and say no, but that would violate the Ten Commandments, so, yeah, you’ll find the compartment just beneath the rug in the dining room.
The Law was made for people, not people for the Law. Even if Paul and other biblical writers were clear in their opposition to homosexuality in general, which I do not believe they are (see the plethora of my previous posts on this topic), is there ever a point at which we say, look, this restriction doesn’t help anyone? Homosexuality doesn’t seem to hurt anything or anyone when it is within the context of a committed, monogamous, loving relationship. On the other hand, the constant tearing down of gay people by some churches, the constant telling them they are wrong or broken or abominable, is hurting people, with no demonstrably good outcome for anyone involved–not for the churches and not for gay people.
I once heard Erwin Lutzer, a famous pastor and author, speaking on how his church approaches the topic of homosexuality. Without a hint of compassion that I could detect, he argued strongly for the unfortunate but necessary sacrifice of celibacy and singleness on the part of gays and lesbians. I sat there wondering, does this man (who, conveniently, is married with children) have any idea the loneliness he’s prescribing for millions of people? Is this really what Jesus would say? “Sorry, folks, gotta sacrifice to keep the Law! Obedience is costly. I know you had no choice in being gay, but thems be the rules.” Or would he say, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice. If you had only understood this, you would not have condemned the innocent”?
“Happy” Valentine’s Day from the Romans
Since it’s Valentine’s Day, and since we’ve recently been thinking through Paul’s letter to the Romans, I thought it might be appropriate for us to look at how the ancient Romans celebrated this day of love, if only to point out just how different their culture really was from ours, and, therefore, how different their context for homosexuality likely was from ours. My point in recent posts has been to encourage us to reconsider whether it’s fair to cut and paste Paul’s comments on homosexual conduct from his world to ours, when those worlds were so unalike.I’ve received a few comments recently that suggest some folks remain unconvinced that the cultural differences between ancient Rome and modern day America were all that great. Sure, maybe they were a bit looser in their morals, but hey, human nature is human nature, right? People are basically the same throughout the ages, right? So of course we can apply Paul’s writings to today without any concern that we might be wrenching them from their context. That seems to be the thinking anyway. I’m not sure we’ve fully appreciated yet just how different Roman society was from ours today.
NPR.org recently posted a story on how those “crazy” Romans “loved” one another on what became our day for celebrating romance. NPR’s Arnie Seipel writes,
“From Feb. 13 to 15, the Romans celebrated the feast of Lupercalia. The men sacrificed a goat and a dog, then whipped women with the hides of the animals they had just slain.
The Roman romantics ‘were drunk. They were naked,’ says Noel Lenski, a historian at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Young women would actually line up for the men to hit them, Lenski says. They believed this would make them fertile.”
Just like today?
No. Not so much.
I continue to believe it is only fair to consider the differences in our world and Paul’s when reading his thoughts on homosexual behavior. When he speaks of gay sex acts in relationship to idolatry in Romans 1, he is almost certainly referencing heterosexual men engaging in homosexual sex rites to honor the goddesses of the day. In 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, it seems at least a good possibility (I would say probability) that malakoi and arsenokoitai have some abusive, exploitive characteristic in mind in whatever they specifically reference because that was the nature of the homosexual conduct of which Paul would have been most aware. Pederasts (child abusers), call boys (male prostitutes), and emasculated temple priests do not a modern day gay relationship make. The culture was simply and significantly different.
Heterosexuality: God’s best?
Joel Osteen’s smile is so perfect, so all-consuming, that I once turned his picture upside down to see what he would look like with a frown, and he was still smiling. Seriously.This is just an aside, a brief interruption in the flow of my posts on homosexuality and the church. A friend asked me a question yesterday that reminded me of something Osteen once said in an interview with Larry King. My friend wanted to know my thoughts on the Genesis account, why if homosexuality is ok did God make the first couple male and female. Joel Osteen would say that the heterosexual arrangement is “God’s best.” At least, that is what he told Larry King when the famous interviewer asked Osteen about gay couples. Osteen, never one to rock boats, did his best to dodge the question, but King wouldn’t let him off the hook. Finally, Osteen said, “I don’t think homosexuality is God’s best.”
I’ve heard this line before, and I don’t follow the logic. It’s as though Osteen and others think gay people could have chosen God’s best and for whatever reason decided they would settle for less. I seriously hesitate to use the following analogy for fear someone will think I’m suggesting homosexuality is a handicap. Not what I’m saying. It’s just an analogy, clunky perhaps, but the best I can come up with this morning: if you are confined to a wheelchair, and that chair is your only means of navigation, how helpful is it to have someone tell you, “I don’t think that wheelchair is God’s best. God’s best is that we use our legs and feet to get around”? We can all agree that most people can and should walk on two legs, but for some people, that just isn’t an option, and no amount of protesting will change that. What use is there in telling someone, “That’s not God’s best,” if God’s best is not available to them? Or does Osteen still think being gay is a choice, that gay people could get up and walk if they’d just decide to?
Again, clunky analogy, I admit.
Or maybe what Osteen meant by “God’s best” was singleness and celibacy. If that’s God’s best, why didn’t Osteen choose it for himself and his wife? Does he not love his wife? Does he not want God’s best for her? I’m not being snarky. Well, maybe a little. But really, we need to think more critically about this issue before we speak because silly comments on the topic are hurting the reputation and witness of the church in our culture. Why didn’t Jesus encourage celibacy more strongly if it is “God’s best”? He only says, “The one who can accept this should accept it” (Matthew 19:12). Paul, who seemed to think the whole world would be better off single as he was, nevertheless concluded in 1 Corinthians 7 that this was not an option for most people:
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of “God’s best,” be it heterosexuality or celibacy. “It’s good not to have sex, but since it’s apparent you’re going to, at least keep it between you and your spouse. Stop taking someone else’s wife or husband as though they were your own.” That’s my paraphrase. Seems as though Paul didn’t have much faith in the practicality of celibacy for most people.
Whatever Osteen means by God’s best, I’m not sure it makes much sense to tell those for whom it isn’t available that they should choose it.
Paul on Homosexuality: PART SIX
A couple years ago I was talking with a fairly well-known pastor and author. Not Philip Yancey (he’s not a pastor) and not Jim Pace (stop trying to guess who). I was trying to figure out what I thought about the whole gay issue in Scripture, and I wanted to know this man’s opinion. I had enjoyed his books a great deal.He said, “Well, what does your gut tell you?”
I honestly didn’t know. “My gut kind of goes both ways right now,” I said. “Hence my confusion.”
He said, “Well what do you think Paul means when he says homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of heaven?”
He wasn’t being snarky. He really wanted to know if I’d considered this and what conclusion I’d reached. Still, I was rather stunned by the question. It seemed as though this pastor and author to thousands didn’t have the first clue that there was considerable disagreement concerning the translation of the term “homosexuals” in the verses this pastor/author was referencing. I knew because I’d been reading up on the subject. I guess I should not have been surprised by this man’s ignorance. Most modern Bibles include no mention of the uncertainty in translation. Had I not gone a-diggin’ to figure this stuff out, I never would have known, myself.
Beyond Romans 1, Paul makes two other brief mentions of what may refer to male homosexuality: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. In both cases, the references are contained within vice lists, a cataloguing of sinful behavior. The Greek terms Paul uses are malakoi and arsenokoitai. What do they mean? It’s difficult to say; scholars have changed their minds over the years, and translations have repeatedly differed on how best to render the words in English. One author has rightly said that as people’s prejudices have changed, so have their translations of malakoi and arsenokoitai.
The 1952 version of the Revised Standard Version translates 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 this way:
“Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals (Greek: oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
The 1977 revision of the Revised Standard Version changed “homosexuals” to “sexual perverts.” Homosexual or heterosexual or both? The translators did not say. The 1989 revision translated malakoi and arsenokoitai separately: “male prostitutes and sodomites.” So the problem in view became not just homosexuality or sexual perversion, but male prostitution (homosexual or heterosexual, the translators didn’t say) and homosexuals (active or passive sexual partners, or both—again, the translators did not say). This is a questionable translation at best since it would include female homosexuality as a vice, and, as we’ll see, the Greek doesn’t allow for this. Also, the term “homosexual” is a 19th century creation. No such word existed in Greek.
As for the 1 Timothy reference, malakoi doesn’t appear. Only arsenokoitai is mentioned, which the New Revised Standard Version renders as “sodomites.”
In general, today’s translators seem to prefer combining the two Greek terms in 1 Corinthians, rendering them as “practicing homosexuals,” or something of the like, and without an asterisk indicating uncertainty as to the exact meaning. This is extremely misleading. In Paul’s day, malakoi literally meant “soft.” It was often a term used derisively to describe people who were lazy, lovers of luxury, or morally loose. Sometimes the word was used specifically to refer to male call boys—boys and young men who were free citizens, not slaves, but who chose prostitution as their profession, dressing effeminately to attract older men looking to pay them for sexual favors. Whichever usage Paul has in mind here in the New Testament, I can see no justification for combining malakoi with arsenokoitai. If malakoi does refer to homosexual behavior, the reference is most likely to the passive call boy. It is hardly fair to compare first century male prostitutes to twenty-first century gay marriages.
The word arsenokoitai is even harder to translate with confidence. The word only appears twice in the Bible, in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. There is no recorded use of the term in history before these references, and historians can only find a handful of uses after the New Testament, a few of which (according to one historian I read) do not appear to be referencing homosexual practice. Did the word change meanings over time? Did it have meanings we do not know of today?
The most reasonable theory I found on the origin of this word is that early Greek Christians coined the term as a shorthand Hebrew-to-Greek translation of the prohibition in Leviticus, “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman.” Arseno- means “men” and –koitai means “lying.” Though entirely speculative, this seems like a solid, plausible theory for how arsenokoitai came to be a word. It would also make sense that the word would not appear often outside of the New Testament if it was a Greek Christian invention.
But what exactly does arsenokoitai mean in Paul’s context? The Levitical prohibition likely has in mind some form of pagan sex rites used in the worship of Canaan’s gods. Is that what Paul has in mind in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy? Or does he intend a broader meaning, male homosexuality in general? Maybe, but every other sin in the vice list has an exploitative nature to it. In other words, someone is being hurt by the other actions—greed, drunkenness, stealing, etc. What is the demonstrable harm in homosexuality itself? For the vice list to have continuity, Paul must have had some abusive or exploitative characteristic in mind. Some scholars have argued that, just as malakoi might refer to the passive call boy prostitute, arsenokoitai might refer to the older male customer who hired the call boy. This makes sense to me and preserves the continuity of the vice lists, but without Paul here for us to ask him, no one can say for sure what interpretation is exact.
And that’s it. We’ve now examined all the biblical passages that mention homosexuality. (Some people find a veiled reference in the brief letter of Jude, but most scholars believe this is not the case, so I’ll pass on blogging about it.) We have the Sodom story which is about rape, not homosexuality. We have a couple verses in Leviticus that gave instructions on how the Israelite people were to separate themselves from their pagan neighbors. We have some discussion of homosexual acts in relationship to idolatry in Romans. And we have a verse a piece in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy that probably deal with some form of likely abusive homosexual acts. There is nothing in all the Bible that describes or discusses homosexuality as we most often hear of it today—two people of the same sex seeking a loving, respectful relationship with each other.
At this point, we have some serious questions to consider: what then does the Bible mean by sexual immorality? What sexual behavior is acceptable to God and what isn’t, given that the passages on homosexuality are unclear at best? What was Jesus’ approach to applying the Old Testament Law to our New Testament reality? What is sin if not the violation of a hard and fast rule that always and continually says “no”? And for me, and for all gay Christians, if the Scriptures aren’t crystal clear on how we should view and respond to our sexuality, how do we proceed in life? Much to discuss as we continue on from here.
Paul on Homosexuality: PART FIVE
I feel as though for the first time in my life Paul’s letter to the Romans makes sense as a cohesive unit. When I tried making “Romans” chapter 1 about humanity’s metaphorical idolatry and homosexuality, nothing quite clicked. Once I understood the culture of Paul’s day and the circumstances within the early church in Rome which Paul must have been addressing, everything came into focus.It’s well known that there was discord in the early days of the Christian faith. Jewish followers found it difficult to believe and accept that God had made those dirty awful Gentiles equal recipients with the chosen people, the Jews, in the kingdom of heaven. Quite simply, the Jews were jealous and offended. For their part, the Gentiles were at times given to arrogance over their newfound access to a relationship with God. They boasted against the Jews who they saw as having been cast aside by God for their disobedience and unbelief.
The apostle Paul sets about the task of writing a long and brilliant thesis on why there is no cause for jealousy or arrogance because there is no difference in God’s sight between Jew and Gentile (Romans 3:22-24; 10:12-13). The “Good News” is not just that people can be forgiven of their sins and restored to fellowship with the God of all creation. The “Good News” is that all people can have this experience. The Jew, yes, but also the Gentile. The circumcised and the uncircumcised alike. This seems obvious to us today. It was shocking and controversial early on.
Paul begins in Romans 1, not (at least in my mind and the minds of many commentators) to discuss humanity’s metaphorical idolatries, but to describe the awful pagan idolatries of the Gentiles. He uses common imagery which the Jews would have seen around them in the culture of the day: the worship of creatures rather than the Creator, idols made in the form of reptiles, men, and women; pagan sex rites, orgies involving men and women, and emasculated male priests having para physin sex with men in order to transcend gender and become like the goddesses they worshipped. Paul does his best to make the Gentiles look truly awful in their fallenness. One can almost hear his Jewish readers saying, “Yeah! That’s right, Paul! Get ‘em!”
Of course the celebration ends abruptly in Romans 2 when Paul springs his trap on the Jews.
ROMANS 2
17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; 18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”Why would Paul suddenly start staying, “Hey, you too,” to the Jews if he had already included them in Romans 1? If Romans 1 is all about the fall of humanity as a whole, there would be no need for chapter 2. It seems to me that Romans 1 is written to make the Jews feel that familiar sense of superiority that they’d enjoyed as God’s chosen people throughout the ages. Then Paul overturns their confidence with Romans 2 and indicts them as well. He says, in effect, “You who trust in the law and judge the law-breaking Gentiles … you’re just as guilty!”
So all are under judgment for sin. All have fallen short of God’s glorious standard.
ROMANS 3
9 What shall we conclude then? Do we [Jews] have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin … There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.So grace comes by faith, not by keeping the Old Testament Law, and that grace is available through faith to Jew and Gentile alike.
In Romans 4 and 5, Paul shows how this theology is consistent with the Old Testament. Abraham was given the promise after the first Adam sinned. Now the second Adam (Jesus) has made good on God’s promise. In Romans 6 through 8, we are now released from the covenant (Old Testament Law) that leads to death and are inducted into a new covenant (the law of the Spirit) that leads to life. In Romans 9, we see that all of this is by God’s sovereign choice. Again, in Romans 10, there is now no difference between Jew of Gentile. The Lord of all is generous toward all who call on him.
This might make the Gentiles a little boastful to suddenly find themselves in such favor with God. Paul says there is no cause for boasting.
ROMANS 11
17 If some of the branches [Jews] have been broken off, and you [the Gentiles], though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
The “Good News,” the Gospel, is that all are on the same level now before God. All must trust in Jesus’ sacrifice for sins. There is no other salvation.
In Romans 12 – 16, Paul describes how God’s people should live in light of this grace provided. This final section of his letter, or thesis, builds on Jesus’ “new commandment” to love one another.
ROMANS 13
8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Did you catch that? “… Whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
That’s it? That’s all I have to keep in mind? No more picking and choosing from the Old Testament laws? No more endless debates over whether this or that is sin? I simply need to ask myself, am I, in doing this thing or that, loving my neighbor as I would love myself? Could it really be that simple?
We’ll return to this later, but first, let’s look at the other two brief references Paul makes to some sort of homosexual activity.
Paul on Homosexuality: PART FOUR
Remember Sophia Petrillo sitting around the kitchen table spinning epic yarns for her incredulous roommates? “Picture it! Sicily. 1945.”Well, picture it:
Rome. First century A.D. You walk the city streets by day as you have since you arrived here on your missionary journey months ago. The pagan culture shock you experienced at first finally is subsiding. Somewhat, at least. The ubiquitous idol worship no longer surprises. The pervasive imagery of gods and goddesses, the temple to Artemis high on a hill, the likeness of Cybele on the coins you use to buy and sell–it’s all quickly becoming old hat. Even the stories you hear of public orgies and pagan sex rites, of men having sex with male temple priests–the men hoping for good luck from the gods, the priests hoping to transcend gender, thus becoming more like the gods–even these stories are becoming all too familiar.
Nothing prepares you, however, for what you see this day. You come upon a crowd of maybe a couple hundred, all singing, shouting, and dancing around a solitary man who stands stark naked at the center of the scene. He appears as though in some sort of a trance. His eyes are fire and frenzy. In one hand he grasps a sword as he sways to the rhythm of the crowd’s chanting. Is the mob attacking him, or is he threatening them? Suddenly, the man looks toward heaven, lets out a piercing cry, grabs his genitals with one hand, and with the other runs the sword between his legs. The throng roars with–is it celebration?–as the man drops the sword and lifts his testicles to the sky. Blood puddles at the man’s feet. You gag, overcome with nausea, as the man runs off through the streets, the crowd chasing after.
In the apostle Paul’s day, pagan worship and idolatry were everywhere. Read the biblical book of Acts, or even just a history book about the time. The Roman Empire was a hotbed for public, pagan religious celebration. One shocking (though commonplace by some accounts) public display of this religious fervor was the ordination ceremony for male temple priests of many goddess religions who made themselves eunuchs in an attempt to move beyond gender. By the second century A.D., the official Roman calendar even set aside the Day of Blood for this “celebration.”
Lucian (c. 125 A.D. – after 180 A.D.) describes the scene:
“Any young man who has resolved on this action, strips off his clothes, and with a loud shout bursts into the midst of the crowd, and picks up a sword from a number of swords which I suppose have been kept ready for many years for this purpose. He takes it and castrates himself and then runs wild through the city, bearing in his hands what he has cut off. He casts it into any house at will, and from this house he receives women’s raiment and ornaments. Thus they act during their ceremonies of castration.”
Bearing in mind that public orgies and sex rites involving both men and women were just part of the culture of Paul’s day, and bearing in mind these castration ceremonies, let’s go back to Romans 1.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Doesn’t it seem possible, even likely, that the “them” and “they” of this passage isn’t humanity in general, but the Gentiles of Rome who, far from engaging in some metaphorical idolatry, were involved in very literal, physical worship of creatures, rather than the Creator? And as for the mysterious “penalty” which men “received in themselves”–rather than the groundless claim that Paul is referring to sexually transmitted diseases–doesn’t it seem more plausible that Paul has in mind the physical consequence to men of becoming like these gods and goddesses, of forsaking all gender, and that “their error” was not homosexuality itself, but the idolatry that led to, among other things, heterosexual male temple priests having sex with men and castrating themselves? If castration is the penalty Paul has in mind, it would make sense that he mentions only men enduring it and says nothing of a penalty for the women involved in these sex rites. If Paul had disease in mind, it should have been a penalty to both men and women.
Again, I could be wrong, and one can make an argument for the traditional interpretation of Romans 1. I simply think a better argument is made when we acknowledge the world in which Paul was living and how that surely influenced what he said. I just don’t think he was sitting secluded in a library or synagogue somewhere, contemplating metaphorical idolatry and its effects on the human race. I think he was describing the very real scene “on the street,” the reality the early Christians of Rome were facing as they tried to live out their faith in such an idolatrous culture.
Up next, the structure of Romans as a whole, and whether the interpretation proposed here is in harmony with the rest of Paul’s letter.
Paul on Homosexuality: PART THREE
The traditional interpretation would say that Romans 1:26 refers to female homosexuality. If that’s true, it is the only verse in all the Bible to do so. This verse is crucial to a scriptural argument that the Bible treats homosexuality in general as sin. Without it, the best a traditionalist can show is where the Bible mentions male homosexuality. Let’s look at it, because the meaning of verse 26, and how it has been interpreted throughout the ages, touches on another possible understanding of the “unnatural” (para physin) sex Paul discusses here in Romans 1. Paul says that “they”—again, whoever “they” are, be they Gentiles only or all human beings—“they exchanged the truth of God for a lie.”26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
“In the same way …” That connecting phrase makes all the difference in the world in determining what verse 26 means. Either “in the same way” means both men and women were involved in the same specific form of unnatural sex—i.e., homosexuality—or, “in the same way,” they abandoned the natural for the unnatural in a more general sense. But what else could that mean than that the women engaged in lesbianism? One way to get at least a good idea how that verse might have been understood in Paul’s day is to look at how the early church leaders and interpreters understood it.
As we’ve seen previously, Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 A.D. – c. 215 A.D.) did not see lesbianism in Romans 1:26. He saw any sex that was not procreative. He saw in that verse women having “unnatural” anal sex. He wrote,
“It is clear that we should reject sex between men, sex with the infertile, anal sex with women, and sex with the androgynous.”
He said nothing about women having sex with women.
Augustine (354 A.D – 430 A.D.) wrote,
“But if one has relations even with one’s wife in a part of the body which was not made for begetting children, such relations are against nature and indecent. In fact, the same apostle earlier said the same thing about women, ‘For their women exchanged natural relations for those which are against nature (Romans 1:26)’.”
So Augustine agreed with Clement that the sex “against nature” was not lesbianism, but men having sex with women in a non-procreative manner.
Didymus the Blind (c. 313 A.D. – 398 A.D.) expanded on Paul’s words in Romans 1:26 precisely because he did not feel Paul had dealt with lesbianism. Didymus wrote,
“… Those who did not see fit to acknowledge God and were given up to a debased mind are guilty of improper behavior, having lustful desires for one another, males committing shameless acts with males, females exchanging the intercourse natural to females for unnatural, and women having lewd desires for women” (emphasis, mine).
Why add that last phrase about lesbianism if it was already covered in what Paul said about women exchanging natural intercourse for that which is unnatural?
At least early on in church history, Romans 1:26 was not widely understood as referring to women having sex with women. It referred to women having sex that was not at least potentially procreative. In other words, anything other than vaginal sex. If that is, in fact, what Paul meant, then (1) no where in the Bible does Scripture mention female homosexuality, (2) Scripture cannot be said to condemn homosexuality in general, for only male homosexuality is ever mentioned, and (3) the Catholics have it right on sex: no condoms and no sex that wastes the semen, that thwarts the procreative intent of sex.
Of course, even the Catholics have made some, shall we say, allowances? Over the years, the Church has softened Clement’s stances. Sex with the barren is permitted, as far as I know. I am unaware of any prohibition the Catholic church has on sex with inter-sexed persons. If there is one, please let me know.
In general, I would say most protestants today have no problem with contraception, sex with the infertile, or sex among the elderly, even though these are all para physin, if by “unnatural” we mean non-procreative. If that’s what Paul meant. Why do we make those exceptions, but none for gay people who had no say in their orientation? For that matter, what right have we to make any exceptions with holy scripture? And what is our consistent ethic for making those exceptions? Do we have one?
Up next, what Paul might have seen around him in Rome that led to his talk of idolatry and men receiving in themselves “the due penalty for their error.”
Paul on Homosexuality: PART TWO
I wish there were an easy way of dealing with “Romans” tidily in a single blog post, rather than stretching this thing out over many days and posts. But alas, Paul was quite the thinker, and his writings are dense and his reasoning deliberately (and brilliantly) tangled at times. I’ll have to ask that you hang with me over the coming days.I’m keenly aware of the possibility, when quibbling about the exact meanings of Greek terms, of sounding like one former president who famously argued in grand jury testimony, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” The world laughed: Does the President of the United States really not know? Of course he did. He was using some good ol’ lawyer tactics to evade the obvious.
Anyway, I worry that some will think I’m doing the same, just playing with words, the meanings of which are clear. Though you’ll have to take my word, or at least give me the benefit of the doubt, I’m not trying to evade the obvious. I’m not playing politics with holy scripture. I’m trying to really understand what Paul is saying, because people’s lives and the reputation and witness of the church in our culture are at stake in our conclusions.
In Romans 1, Paul says that because “they,” whomever he means by “they,” “exchanged the truth about God for a lie,” God gave them over to “shameful” (Greek: atimias) lusts so that men and women exchanged “natural” (Greek: physiken) sexual relations for those that were “unnatural” (Greek: para physin). According to the traditionalist point of view, “unnatural” means contrary to the laws of the natural world which were established by God. Men are meant to have sex with women and women with men, not women with women and not men with men. Homosexuality then is condemned as “shameful,” intrinsically sinful.
One of the first things I learned, however, in my study of this issue, was that Paul uses the same Greek terms for “shameful” and “nature” when speaking of men who have … wait for it … long hair!
1 CORINTHIANS 11 NASB
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
“Does not even nature (physin) itself teach you …?” Well, no, Paul, if by nature you mean the laws of the natural world as God designed them. In fact, if that is Paul’s meaning, just the opposite is true! Nature would teach that long hair is perfectly natural, for if you don’t cut it, it grows, according to nature, not para physin, contrary to nature. Clearly, by “nature,” Paul means “normal,” as in the normal way of doing things, or, what is the culturally accepted norm. He also uses the same Greek word for “shameful” here to say that long hair on a man is a “dishonor.” Surely, Paul does not mean that long hair on men is intrinsically sinful.
Back to Romans, now. Insert the same meanings for “nature” and “shameful” or “a dishonor.” You get a very different understanding of the passage. Is Paul saying these “shameful” or “dishonoring” lusts are inherently sinful, or is he saying they violate the normal way of doing things, the culturally accepted norm? A valid argument can be made for either interpretation. Without Paul here to tell us which is correct, we can only guess, and I need something more than my best guess to tell millions of people that their love is intrinsically sinful.
One more passage to consider today:
ROMANS 11 NASB
24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?
Paul is using a metaphor to describe how the Gentiles came to be equal recipients with the Jews of the promises of God. He says the Gentiles were a branch of a wild olive tree grafted into the cultivated olive tree, the Jewish people. And he says this was done “contrary to nature.” Yep, same Greek words as in Romans 1, para physin. God acted contrary to what is normal, what is commonly done. Instead of grafting a cultivated branch into a wild tree so that the cultivated branch benefits from the strength of the wild tree, God does the opposite. He acts contrary to convention. He surely isn’t violating any laws of the natural world in doing so. He’s simply acting in an unexpected, uncommon way. He is behaving para physin.
Again, back to Romans 1. Could Paul simply be saying that para physin sex is contrary to cultural convention and, therefore, is shameful, though not necessarily intrinsically sinful? If we’re quick to say, “NAW!” I have to wonder if bias is at work, if years of hearing things one way have rendered us nearly incapable of hearing them any other way. I mean, if Paul consistently uses words to mean one thing, why would we, without question, assume he suddenly uses them some other way in Romans 1?
There is another possibility, though, for what Paul means by sex that is para physin. But alas, that will have to be for next time.
