Introduction (Anne)
In March 1994, I gave a sermon in which I spoke of our denomination's 30-year history of fighting discrimination against gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. But I also said I had experienced in this congregation mostly silence on this issue. I said I could count the number of our openly gays and lesbian members on one hand, and I wondered aloud whether this was indeed a safe and welcoming place. My diagnosis was that we suffered from "heart-lag." We understood the issues and affirmed gays and lesbians intellectually, but our hearts, our emotions, our assumptions were lagging behind. I challenged myself and all of us to grow beyond heart-lag -- to move from tolerance to affirmation to celebration of a diversity of sexual orientations.
It was a scary sermon to give. Your reactions were mixed, and I had no idea what, if anything, would ever come of it. Now, just four years later, I am so proud of what you have accomplished that I could burst! Every one of the issues in that sermon -- and many more besides -- have been brought to the surface and acted upon. I now need not just both hands, but both feet and then some to count the gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who grace our religious community with their presence.
Of course we have not quite arrived at perfection. The struggle continues, within ourselves, and, especially, in the wider society. As recent letters to me editor attest, many still use the Bible to justify hatred of and discrimination against gays. My knee-jerk response is, "Who cares what the Bible says? How can anyone take this uneven collection of legends, laws, poetry, and theologies literally?" As Unitarian Universalists, we draw from the wisdom of all the world's religions, including Judaism and Christianity, but our reason, intuition, and experience tell us that not all parts of the Bible are wise. Indeed, if the entire Bible was dictated by God, then God is clearly confused, for contradictions and falsehoods abound.
But although we may not worry about taking the Bible literally, we live in a world with people who do. We cannot remain silent in the face of injustice and ignorance, but we can respond more intelligently if were knowledgeable about the biblical passages cited against gays. So today we invite you to explore with us these so-called "proof-texts," four of which are on he cover of your order of service. These texts and the way they are used make me angry, and I get a sick feeling just seeing them in print in this sanctuary. But our anger is healthy, because we can use it to push us toward working for a world grounded not in hate and fear, but in the more important biblical themes of justice and compassion.
Hebrew Bible (Wade)
"Abomination" is such a strong word. It condemns so utterly, in an archaic, musty fashion out of place with our modern sensibilities. Perhaps we've become inured to most forms of human depravity, rendered commonplace topics by the likes of Jerry Springer or Geraldo Rivera. But "abomination" is a term, and with it, a judgment, resurrected to contemporary currency by conservative Christians in their culture wars against homosexuality. The Hebrew Bible, the Christian Old Testament, states boldly in Leviticus (18:22, Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." For many Christians, that's enough. The Bible, God's word, labels homosexuality an "abomination" and that's the end of the discussion.
For other of us, however, that's only the beginning of the discussion. Anne and I will take time this morning to show that it is far from clear what the Bible says about homosexuality, and that many thoughtful and faithful Christians have reached the conclusion that they do not have to regard homosexuality as an abomination. They can, in fact, affirm gay people as they are and thereby be faithful to the greater Biblical ethic: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Examining this struggle of Christians with their tradition over the issue of homosexuality can be instructive to all of us, as engage our own legacies of socialization while trying to do what is right.
But back to abominations. If we were drawing up our own list, what might we put on it? I might include: a plate of Brussels sprouts, the Welfare Reform Bill, a tie-breaker shoot-out in hockey. Others would put down different things -- like leaving hair in the bath tub, or eating meat. The point is, there are some things that arouse in us a visceral, irrational loathing -- from the trivial to the profound. It behooves us to examine these instinctual judgements before elevating them to the status of commandments.
So let's return to that passage in Leviticus and examine it more closely. Again, it says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." This seems to let lesbians off the hook, part of the Bible's general disregard of women or relegation of them to subservient status. We now know to be immediately suspicious of any policy-maker who would be so clearly biased against women, and this prohibition does imply a definite inferiority to acting like a woman. Our suspicions are borne out by looking at some of the other Biblical laws regarding women. For example, polygamy is permitted and regularly practiced in the Old Testament, as is a man having a concubine. A woman having her menstrual period is unclean, we are told, and sex with her during this time is not permitted. Merely touching a menstruating woman renders you impure. Such condescending attitudes toward women do not undo the fact that Leviticus condemns homosexual acts between men. But it begins to show the context for this condemnation -- it is the view of socially dominant men who are obsessed about details of purity.
Just consider a few of the other objects and acts the authors of Leviticus deem abominable. "All in the seas or rivers that do not have fins and scales are an abomination to you." (11:10) That is, eating a lobster or clams is an abomination. Of course we know that pigs were regarded as unclean, too, and prohibited as food. (11:24) But also, consuming the blood in a permitted animal was ground for expulsion from the community. (17:10) Various skin diseases could not get you pronounce unclean. (13) Also, touching semen (like touching a menstruating woman) made a person unclean, requiring hours or days of purification before being allowed to rejoin normal society. (15).
If we would feel queasy about trying to follow such a list of proscriptions, we will get downright nauseous when we read some of the penalties our Biblical lawmakers had in mind. Let's go back to the homosexuality abomination, which the priestly writers of Leviticus repeat at a later point (20:13) adding, "If a man lies with a male as a woman, they shall be put to death." Even few fundamentalist Christians, who supposedly take every word of the Bible literally, want to follow the Good Book this far (though there are a few). The book of Leviticus also calls for the death penalty when a child curses his or her parents, for those committing adultery, for the person who takes the Lord's name in vain. Shouldn't all who look to the Bible as the source for their condemnation of homosexuality begin to question its authority when they see such insupportable extremism?
These two passages in Leviticus are the only unequivocal statements against homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament. The story of Sodom in Genesis (19:1-29), which Christianity has traditionally interpreted as showing God's displeasure with homosexuality, has been demonstrated by recent scholarship to be clearly about the sin of inhospitality toward strangers. A mob of men in the city threaten to gang rape two visiting male strangers as a way of humiliating them and showing their disdain for aliens. The story has nothing to do with consensual, loving same-sex relations. Later Jewish writings mention various sins of the people of Sodom, from pride to idolatry, but any kind of sexual sin is never mentioned. So it is odd, and sad, that we now have the English word "sodomy" to describe a purported sin that Biblical authors never attributed to the residents of Sodom.
The star of the Sodom story, one patriarchal male by the name of Lot, tries to save the two strangers who have sought shelter in his house. Lot's answer: appease the mob by offering to let them have their way with his two virgin daughters! He's the one (along with his poor family) whom God saves, while loudly punishing the citizens of Sodom. Where is the moral lesson here? As with far too much of the Hebrew Bible -- for example, I was just reading the other night the account of why Saul, the first king of Israel, lost favor with God: he had neglected to obey the letter of the Lord's command to kill every man, woman, child, and beast in an enemy town (he saved out a few sheep to offer as a sacrifice) -- we find cases that ought to be treated with the Dennis Rodman principle. You can admire his abilities and entertainment value on the basketball court, but he ain't no role model. You can appreciate the historical importance, the lofty passions, the moral earnestness, the artful language throughout much of the Hebrew Bible. But in most instances, it does not provide today's thoughtful, caring, educated, discerning person a worthwhile role model.
So if you scorn slavery, do not prefer polygamy, love lobster, savor spare ribs, find militaristic violence vile, think women equally worthy, it is not because the Bible told you so. Then why should we, or faithful Christians, succumb to the Bible's authority in the case of our attitude toward homosexuality?
My inner light, nurtured in this church, where it is has been encouraged to see out wisdom in science, personal experience, and others' stories, as well as in ancient traditions, is helping me to bury some of the outmoded lists of abominations which were part of my enculturation. Rising in their place I can at least count one grand new affirmation -- of all those who seek to give and to know love, in whatever form. Isn't this the Bible's enduring message, too?
New Testament (Anne)
Even those with terrible memories can learn everything Jesus had to say about homosexuality, because, according to the Bible, he never mentioned it. Only Paul write of what some translations from the original Greek render as "homosexuals." Actually, however, there was no noun in ancient Greek for homosexual, because the term originated only in the 19th century. So if you see "homosexual" in a Bible verse, a red flag should go up, for issues of translation and interpretation must come into play.
The first anti-gay passage in the New Testament comes in Paul's letter to the Romans (1:26-27). Here he says God punishes women who engage in unnatural relations and men who commit indecent (or shameless, in some translations) acts with other men. If you read what comes before and after, you'll see that Paul understands this behavior as part of a progression that beings with the really important sin, failure to acknowledge God. The people have slipped into pagan ways -- they worship idols and engage in heterosexual fertility rites. This, says Paul, leads to same-gender sex, and then to other non-sexual sins, like theft, envy, and murder.
For men, it's not clear whether Paul is here condemning all homosexual behavior, or whether he is speaking of homosexual sex only in the context of pagan rituals. For women, it's not clear what the "unnatural " acts are. The Greek is more accurately rendered as "unconventional" acts, so Paul may be referring to heterosexual behavior. There is no certainty that lesbian sex is involved. All we can say for sure is that the sex Paul opposed is heavy with lust and promiscuity, and connected with pagan worship.
The other passages cited against gays are from First Corinthians (6:9) and First Timothy (1:9-10). In these passages, condemnation of homosexuality turns on the translation of two Greek words. The first is malakoi, which literally means "soft," but which here has a sexual connotation. In some Greek texts, malakoi is used to mean licentious, and in others it refers to boys who take the passive position in sex, often for money. Some Bibles translate malakoi as "effeminate," which is inaccurate; "boy prostitutes" is more likely. This does not constitute a condemnation of all gay men and has nothing whatever to do with lesbians.
No one know what the other Greek word, arsenokoitai, means. It is not found elsewhere in the Bible or in other literature of the period, including Greek homo-erotic literature. "Arseno" mean "male" or "strong," and "koitai" means "bed" or "sexual intercourse." But what did Paul mean when he put them together? The word has been translated variously over the centuries - as "temple prostitutes," "masturbators," "male prostitutes," and, more recently, "homosexuals" or "homosexual practices." Many scholars believe that arsenokoitai relates to male prostitution; it may refer to the older men who hired boys for sex. Or Paul may have been condemning the kind of relationships praised by Plato, in which an older man is both mentor and lover to a young man or adolescent boy. Plato wanted these pairings to be primarily intellectual and spiritual, but he admitted that the practice often turned into rape or child abuse, especially in e parts of the Greek world where Paul did most of his work.
Taken in context, these three new Testament "proof texts" don't actually prove much of anything. They are ambiguous, but seem o relate not to homosexuality in general, but to paganism and prostitution. Paul may have considered all same-gender sexual behavior a rebellion against God, but we can't be sure. Besides, Paul had no concept of homosexuality as we understand it. Some of the participants in Greek man-boy relationships were doubtless homosexual according to modern definitions, but they were considered heterosexual by their culture. Paul's era was unaware that there are different sexual orientations, fixed before birth or early in life, over which one has no choice. He assumed everyone was heterosexual, and so considered same-gender sex unnatural. He would have had no experience of the kind of gay or lesbian love partnerships we see today.
Of course Paul wasn't that happy about heterosexual sex, either. He felt celibacy was the best course, though few fundamentalists seem to be following his advice. Paul gave us some perceptive insights into the human condition, but his ideas about sex aren't among them. Nor are his approval of slavery or his views on women. As with the Hebrew Bible passages Wade discussed, few follow Paul in every respect - theirs is a selective literalism, and too often they use the Bible to attack those who were not the targets of the original text. We must speak out when we hear these texts misused. We need not surrender the Bible to those who would distort and misinterpret it.
It's a long shot, perhaps, but the Paul who wrote "There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, for all of you are one in Christ" might even have added "gay or straight" to his list if he were alive today. For Paul opposed blind allegiance tot he ancient purity laws on which anti-gay folks often rely. Both Paul and Jesus believed that the boundaries of the old codes must be transcended, as we are to serve not the law, but the life of the spirit. Jesus didn't have anything to say about homosexuality, but the man who consorted with prostitutes and tax collectors has a lot to say against domination by power and privilege, even as he challenged his followers to a radical kind of compassion. The question Jesus raises is not "What is permitted?" but "What does it mean to love my neighbor?" We have opportunities every day to live our answers to that holy question. Let us join hands, gay and straight together, and be about the business of building where justice and compassion know no bounds.
Recommended reading:
Click here to go back to my Introduction Page...
Get your own Free Home Page