It's all in the Good Book - Or is it?

Rev Gillian Cooke MA BD

A student once claimed the Bible is against homosexuality from Genesis to Revelation, and from the opposition to homosexuality from many Christians one would expect that to be the case. In fact the Bible has very little to say on the matter of homosexuality and we have no recorded words of Jesus on the subject at all. Furthermore, when we consider the references that are so often quoted, they may not refer to homosexuality as we understand it today. Liberals have no wish to ignore biblical teaching but are not content with making superficial assumptions about interpretation. They want to understand the writer's intentions by reading the texts in the light of their social and historical context.

The traditional church teaching is that marriage between one man and one woman is seen as the only 'biblical' relationship in which sex should take place, and outside marriage celibacy is the expected norm. Underlying this are the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 which are used to emphasise the distinctiveness of men and women and their attraction for each other, which is in accord with God's command to 'be fruitful and multiply'. This is seen to exclude same sex attraction which cannot result in procreation.

This concentration on procreation ignores the fact that in the second account of creation, the story tells that God's intention in creating Eve for Adam was companionship. This close bonding is something which gay and straight people can both enjoy. Furthermore, as Michael Vasey says (Strangers and Friends, p. 115) 'it is simplistic to see the story of Adam and Eve as providing a biblical mandate for the isolated nuclear family of Western culture. These great chapters are intended to provide the backcloth to the whole complex story of the ordering of human society..... 'one flesh' refers to the creation of a new kinship group (cf Genesis 29.14).' Furthermore, it would seem that too much is being read into the Genesis account. What as a descriptive story is not only being used to establish an ought but also an ought not, which does not necessarily follow.

On marriage, Jesus and the New Testament generally are decidedly ambivalent. Indeed, it would be true to say that marriage and the family have a pretty poor press in the New Testament. Family and marital ties were to be subordinated to the needs of the Kingdom because of the belief that the present world order was about to end. Nevertheless, Jesus and Paul as Jews would have taken heterosexual marriage for granted and the desire for offspring an integral part of this.

Before discussing New Testament texts which appear to refer to homosexuality, we need to consider the Old Testament teaching on the subject, with which the New Testament writers would have been familiar.

Old Testament

It is important to look at the whole of the Old Testament teaching rather than search for the well known anti-gay texts if we are to do justice to the Scriptural teaching. The writers would not have understood our contemporary recognition of a gay identity, because it is a recent discovery. Much background writing too is in the context of Israel's resistance to the idolatry of her neighbours. However, it is important to note that we do have in the Scriptures positive images of same sex bonding. The stories of Jonathan and David are well known as is the story of Ruth and her mother in law. While there is no suggestion that these relationships were sexual, we do need to note the value of these same sex relationships as we examine the more negative 'proof texts' against homosexuality. Their closeness and loyalty to each other amidst adversity is represented in a very positive way. The deepness of the relationship between Jonathan and David is stressed several times - 'Jonathan made a pact with David to love him as his own soul' (1 Sam. 8,3), and protects him when his father Saul becomes jealous of David who will become king instead of him.

Nevertheless, as Jeffrey John points out, many Christians still read scripture in a fundamentalist way without giving sufficient regard to the social and historical context ('Permanent, Faithful, Stable'). Nowhere is this more true than the way the story of Sodom (Gen. 19) has been used because from it we have the word 'sodomy'. (A similar story is told in Judges 19.) However, it is now recognised that it is not actually about homosexuality. The sin of the men of Sodom was to threaten the visitors with gang rape. We now recognise that rape is rarely about sex and is more about power and humiliation and even when it is carried out by men on men it is mostly perpetrated by straight men not gay. For the Israelite, the breach of hospitality was the major crime, and although we may deplore Lot's offer of his daughters as substitute victims, this would have been Lot's motivation. Jeffrey John comments 'Indeed, for centuries afterwards the "sin of Sodom" was perceived not as homosexuality but as the contravention of the rules of hospitality, as it was clearly understood by Jesus himself in Matthew 10,14-15' (p. 10-11 - see also Ezekiel 16, 49-50). The links with homosexuality developed more in the intertestamental period when homosexuality was seen as a specifically 'Gentile sin' and more will be said about this as we look at the New Testament.

More specific references to homosexuality would seem to be found in the Holiness Code of Leviticus 18,22 and 20,13. Countryman's book concentrates on the theme of purity, which he sees as vital for Israel. Hence cross dressing (Deut.22,5) would be seen as polluting, since women were seen as a greater source of pollution due to menstruation and childbirth. This is the only reference to cross dressing in the Bible. The Holiness Code included not only laws about sexual acts, but also covered a much wider range of 'sins' including much we would not classify as moral issues (eg sowing two kinds of grain in a field or wearing a garment made of two different types of fabric, Lev.19,19). The main aim was to keep Israel pure and distinct from her non Israelite neighbours, and to prevent her contamination by foreign people and ideas. Stoning men who commit homosexual acts would be seen as the removal of contamination of the community. As James Nelson points out, 'The uncompromising condemnation in Leviticus is clear, though it must be understood in the context of the concern for cultic purity in the face of defiling pagan incursions as well as beliefs about male dignity and the nonprocreative loss of the revered life-bearing semen in a patriarchal culture.' (A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics Article on Homosexuality p.272) The prohibition of cult prostitutes (male and female) in Deuteronomy 23, 17-18 must also be seen in this light.

The Old Testament is, therefore, not so clearly condemning homosexuality as has been traditionally believed. Certainly if we take into account our modern knowledge about sexual orientation and the historical and social context of the Old Testament references, we can legitimately claim they are not relevant to our modern discussion. For the Old Testament writers two men engaging in a sexual act would have been doing something contrary to their true nature. Today we can recognise that this is in accord with the sexuality of those who are gay or lesbian.

New Testament

Vasey stresses the importance of friendship in the ministry of Jesus and in the life of the early church. He points out that at that time same sex groupings were culturally acceptable in a way we would find alien today, particularly in middle class society, and Jesus' group of disciples would have been one such group. He also highlights three characteristics in Jesus' offering of friendship that are particularly evocative for gay people: The first is his close friendship with the apostle John, 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (John 13,23, 19,26, 20,2, 21,20). This is described in St John's Gospel in terms of 'deepest intimacy', although he is not suggesting there is a sexual element involved. Secondly, he points to the welcome Jesus gave 'to those whom society regarded as beyond the pale' which for gay people who are so often stigmatised is particularly reassuring, although it was roundly condemned by Jesus' religious critics. Thirdly there is the reassurance of 1 John 4,16 that God is love. Vasey comments, 'Straight people are quick to see in the love and intimacy that they experience a pale reflection of divine love' and asks 'why gay people should not be allowed the same freedom' (Strangers and Friends, pp.121-4).

Critics of homosexuality ignore material like the above and concentrate on the few references in the epistles, which we will now consider. However, firstly we need to note that as Countryman points out, for the New Testament writer same sex relationships would not have been the same as we understand them today: 'The classic form of same-sex relationships was pederastic'. In Greece 'the youth was typically freeborn and the relationship could be quite open, approved, and honorable', and in Rome 'the beloved was more commonly a slave and entirely at his master's bidding; and freemen did not like to surrender control of their sons in this particular way'. In addition, male prostitutes serviced both sexes. (p.118). Vasey suggests that the relationship between the centurion who asks Jesus to heal his servant and whom Jesus commends for his faith, may well have been an example of the type of relationship just cited (p.120). As Nelson points out, the assumption for the writers of the Epistles about those who indulged in homosexual acts would have been that they were 'heterosexual persons who freely chose to act contrary to their own "natural" inclinations' (p.272).

Paul's comments in Romans 1, 26-27 must be read in the context of the above. He states that by turning to idolatry and away from the one true God, men and women open themselves up to all sorts of evil practices. The unnatural practices referred to are probably not the equal partnerships of gay men and lesbian women that we see today. To be 'without honour, love and pity' is certainly no more true of gay partnerships than of heterosexual marriages.

The exact meanings of the words in 1 Corinthians 6, verses 9-11 translated in the RSV as 'sexual perverts' are not clear and other translators have used different words; the Jerusalem Bible has 'catamites' and 'sodomites', interpreted as those who take the active and passive role in penetrative sex. As Vasey points out, 'The difficulty arises because the precise meaning of the terms is not known and people tend to translate them in the light of their existing perceptions of current or first century homosexuality' (p.135). However, since the word 'malakoi' is not usually used to indicate sex with men it is probably better to translate it, as Vasey argues, as 'wanton' or 'loose living'. The derivation of 'arsenokoitai' does, however, indicate male and sex, and occurs again in 1 Tim. 1,8-9. Vasey concludes 'It is likely that it carries those connotations of slavery, idolatry and social dominance that were associated with corrupt Roman society' (p.136).

It is clear that, once we examine the Scriptures in the light of their historical and social context, we do not find clear evidence that the Bible is against homosexuality from Genesis to Revelation. Indeed there is remarkably little about the subject and what is there probably does not refer to homosexuality as we understand it today. The biblical writers certainly took heterosexuality for granted and could not have been expected to understand that some people are naturally homosexual. It is going beyond the biblical evidence, therefore, to state that it clearly forbids homosexual practice when it takes place between equals.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Dirt, Greed and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and their Implications for Today, L. William Countryman (SCM Press, 1989)
• Permanent, Faithful and Stable, Jeffrey John (Darton, Longman and Todd, 1993, 2000 edition)
• Homosexuality James B. Nelson in A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics, ed. John Macquarrie and James Childress (SCM Press, 1986)
• Strangers and Friends - a new exploration of homosexuality and the Bible, Michael Vasey (Hodder & Stoughton, 1995)