There is much contention within and without the Church on the subject of homosexuality. Is it a sin? Is it okay? What does Scripture say? How do we as followers of Jesus understand that? I am of the contention that the doctrine about homosexuality and homosexuals is ambiguous at best, but that it does not matter because of what we are compelled to be in Jesus.

But how is doctrine unclear? The Bible says all sorts of nasty stuff about homosexuality... Or does it? Let us look at what the Bible has to say...

First out of the gate is the most obvious: Leviticus 20:13 and 18:22. These verses would seem straightforward except that an "abomination" in Biblical parlance is a ritual uncleanliness. According to Leviticus 11:9-12, all unfinned, unscaled seafood is an abomination, as is having an idol in the Temple. There is no principle in the Torah itself by which we can discern that "men lying with men" is a moral wrong or a ritually unclean act. It is simply an abomination.

What does that mean for Christians? Nothing. We are freed not only from ritual purity laws, but from the Law itself. The Law was fulfilled in Jesus, and we are a part of a new covenant. We do not obey the Law, and as much as some want to try to put homosexuality in the 10 Commandments, we don't even follow all of them. The 3rd Commandment is to observe the Sabbath day, which is saturday, not sunday. We also flagrantly disobey the Laws about ritual sacrifices... We have a good reason for that, Jesus being our one eternal sacrifice for all sin, but we disobey it all the same.

What about Sodom and Gamorrah then? Genesis 18 and 19 tell us the sad tale of the doomed city, in which a mob of the town's men attempted to rape a pair of visiting angels. The town was destroyed, and it is said (at nauseum) that God did it because they were gay. Well, Ezekiel 16:48-50 states exactly why it was destroyed, and homosexuality is not listed as a reason. That verse says that the Sodomites were well-fed and arrogant and therefore indifferent to the plight of the suffering and to the needs of vistors. This is confirmed in Jeremiah 23:14, Matt. 10:14-15, and 2 Peter 2:6-8, where the sin of Sodom is associated with inhospitality.

The plot thickens in Judges 19:1-30, where an event happens in Gibeah that is very similar to the events in Sodom. In that story, a man takes a visting noble and his concubine into his abode, and a gang of men form outside who want to rape the nobleman. In a cowardly act of self-preservation, the noble pushes his concubine out to the men and they rape her to death. All of Israel goes to war with Gibeah over the affront. What is at issue here is clearly rape... what then is the issue in Sodom? It is especially interesting to note that no homosexual acts actually took place in the story of Sodom, and God conspired to destroy the city before the angels ever arrived.

One verse tied to Sodom is Jude 1:7, where "strange flesh" is interpreted to mean "homsoexuality". The problem is that Jude 1:6 makes it clear that the passage is talking about human-angel relations, not homosexual ones.

Romans 1:26-27 is used quite often, but it is always divested of it's context. In verses 21-25, Paul is shown to be talking at great length about pagan worship. He speaks of people's forgetting God and worshipping images of men and four-footed creatures and birds and crawling things. In fact, v. 26-27 are clearly a part of the passage where Paul is describing pagan worship, rather than where Paul is describing the consequences of pagan worship. (v. 28-32)

There is another possible interpretation though. If Paul is saying that homosexuality is a consequence of paganism, then Paul is merely mistaken. We know that paganism is not a cause of homosexuality, and there are many Christian homosexuals (regardless of what one things of them). If Scripture is inerrant in matters of faith, then we must accept that Paul is talking abotu homosexual acts in the context of pagan worship rather than the inaccurate proposition that homosexuality is caused by paganism.

Paul at first glance speaks up about it again in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. However, this is where one must appeal to the original greek and to open their eyes to the diversity of interpretation. The original words used in 1 Cor. are "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai", and in 1 Tim. it is "arsenokoitai". In different Bibles, these words are variously translated as male prostitutes, male cult prostitutes (NJB), sodomites, (RSV, which, by way of explanation, every dictionary I've read defines "sodomy" as anal sex, period, which includes both straight and gay people) homosexuals, homosexual offenders (NIV), sexual perverts, effeminate (KJV), pederasts, boy abusers/catamites (NKJV), and bisexuals. So who exactly is Paul condemning?

Any Christian worth their salt should wince at this moral dilema. How can we see fit to condemn a whole group to Hell based on one word we evidently don't know the meaning of? The question gets even more profound when we read in John 20:30-31 that everything Jesus said and did would fill books, but John wrote what he wrote because it was necessary for salvation. Yet there is not one reference to homosexuality in any of the gospels.

Some attempt to read into Matthew 19:4-6 a prohibition against homosexuality. It is not there however: the verse is strictly a teaching on divorce. It isn't even a command to marry, which those who interpret it in an anti-gay fashion must believe if they want to be consistant, since Jesus Himself was not married and neither were many of His followers. (including Paul who actually promotes celibacy and views marriage as a necessary evil)

A second attempt is for people to try to make Jesus the Bible Incarnate... That everything in the Bible was in Jesus, so everything was "said" by Him, even if He didn't actually say it. This is contrary to Christian belief, in which it is Jesus who legitimizes the Bible, not the other way around. We assess everything and especially Scripture by the lens Jesus provides, not assess Jesus by the lens Scripture provides. If we did the latter, we wouldn't believe that Jesus is the Messiah.

Another response is that Jesus never had to talk about homosexuality because evrybody knew it was a sin. This is faulty reasoning that ignores the content of Jesus' teachings. Adultery, greed, inhospitality, legalism, and everything else Jesus talked about always were sins. And they were sins for a very good reason...

Homosexuality, if it is a sin, is a sin unlike any other. I am a firm believer that sins are sins for a reason... They cause the disruption of rightly lived relationships and keep us from reconciliation with God, each other, and all creation. Adultery is a sin because it betrays the marital covenant. Bestiality and pedophelia are sins because animals and children, respectively, cannot consent... they are the rape of beasts and kids. Rape is a sin because it objectifies and abuses on the basis of that objectification. And so on... Yet homosexuality injures no relationships, hurts no one, is done with as much consent as any heterosexual relationship. If homosexuality is a sin, it is a sin "just 'cuz", and condemning people to Hell for no reason other than because one finds them disgusting is itself a disgusting sensibility. (or "nonsensibility")

Not everyone buys these arguements though. But nevertheless, there is an ethic for us to follow. Jesus did teach us love, compassion, humility, forgiveness, and grace. He taught us how to get on with oneanother and set up the Church as the fortaste of the Kingdom, where everyone could commune together in God's love and at God's table, where there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, Goth or Jock, gay or straight. He also taught us that, ultimately, our relationship with God and conviction for sin are our own, as not to butt in preaching lest our own untended sins convict us. As far as I'm concerned, there is no place in the Church for hatred of and preaching at homosexuals, nor is there a place for the mask of "love the sinner, hate the sin." To often that statement is put up as a road block, not allowing one to love without putting up a wall, a condition, to that love... Keeping homosexuals at arm's length because of an uncharitable and un-Christian atmosphere of fear.

We are to express radical discipleship and solidarity with the oppressed and marginalized. In a world of hate, we are to be the balm, not more of the same. Anything other than that is not Christian.