What Does the Bible Really Say About Homosexuality?

A sermon delivered at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation (Blacksburg, VA), August 24, 2003, by the Reverend Christine Brownlie.

How many of your followed the fascinating drama that came out of the American Episcopalian denomination gathering in Minneapolis just a few weeks ago?

Through an odd convergence of human decisions and what I sometimes refer to as God’s wicked sense of humor, this group of Christians was faced with two major decisions that will forever change their denomination. The first decision was the election of an open and “active” gay man, (as opposed to a closeted celibate gay man), the Rev. Gene Robinson, as Bishop of New Hampshire Diocese The second had to do with the blessing of same gender unions. This was a historic convention and certainly a time of high emotion for every person there. I can imagine the tremendous sense of responsibility for the future of the Episcopalian church that hung over every aspect of this gathering.

Those who argued against the election of Rev. Robinson and/or approving the blessing of same gender couples claimed the authority of scripture as their ground, and you’ve probably read some of the letters to the editor in the Roanoke Times that refer to “God’s laws” that condemn homosexuals and same-gender relationships. Some of you have asked me about these references. I’d like to look at those scriptures with you this morning and explore their context and meaning.

I want to start with a statement of affirmation: I take the holy scriptures of the Jewish and Christian traditions seriously. I don’t believe that the scriptures are literally true, but I acknowledge that they are a source of wisdom and ethical teaching. I also acknowledge that they were written in a society that had a world-view that is radically different from our own. You should also know that I am firmly opposed to the practice of using small passages of the scriptures to prove a point. Every word in the Bible has a context and a purpose that must be considered in order to understand what that little snippet of words is really about, and this is the premise that I am working from today.

To begin our exploration, let’s begin by looking at the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole. The first point I want to make is that there is no term in scripture for “homosexual” or “homosexuality” as we understand it today. This is because people of that time had no concept of what we call “sexual orientation.” The assumption of the early Hebrews was that everyone was attracted to those of the opposite sex and that the function of sex was procreation. People of that time also believed that men and women had particular roles and positions in society and that to violate these boundaries was to commit a serious offence against nature and the creator. For the ancient Hebrews, sexual acts between people of the same gender were wrong because in these acts men assumed the passive receptive role of women and women acted in an aggressive dominant manner associated with males. This disturbed the proper order of the world, which was created by God. And obviously, same sex acts did not make babies.

The idea that God created some people to have sexual feelings toward someone of the same gender was unimaginable. The deep love, commitment, and bonds that many homosexual men and women find today in relationships with a same gender partner was never imagined by the ancient Hebrews.

This was a culture that didn’t have the foundations of our modern science or psychology or a sense of the worth and dignity of every person. What shaped and guided this culture were ideas that are puzzling and even shocking to us today. The first of these ideas is that living beings and inanimate objects must be “ritually pure” in order to be worthy of being in relation to Yahweh, the name the ancient Israelites used for their god. “Purity” meant knowing your place in the world, following the rules, and being careful to restore your purity if you became unclean. Just as beings and objects could be pure, they could become impure by coming into contact with something “unclean” like blood or a corpse. There were also activities that made people unclean: childbirth or intercourse with a woman who was menstruating are examples of normal, natural functions that made one unclean. The rules about what was clean and unclean are complicated and, to our modern mind, some seem very odd. For example there was a prohibition against sowing two kinds of seed in the same field or vineyard. We wonder what the harm could be in such a common practice, but the ancient Hebrews believed it was forbidden by God.

We’ll start with a text from Leviticus since it is the “proof-text” that is most often used to support the belief that God condemns homosexuality. But first, I want to tell you something about this book of statutes and ordinances. Leviticus was composed by at least two different writers. Both of them are concerned with maintaining ritual purity or holiness before Yahweh. One writer is called “P” for “Priestly,” and we find his work in chapters 1 through 17. The other writer is known as “H” for “Holiness.” This writer (there may be more than one) is responsible for chapters 18 through 25.

There is an important difference between these two voices. “P” limits the arena of holiness to the sanctuary of the Temple and the priests of the sanctuary. “P” believed that violations of the purity laws could be removed by carrying out certain rituals: often animal sacrifice or bathing, and also by the passage of time.

The second author called “H’” expands the concern for ritual purity beyond the sanctuary and the priesthood into the entire community of people living in the “promised land.” All adults — even foreigners — who lived within this region, were expected to strive to attain the same level of purity that was demanded of the priests by “P.” They were to be a holy people as their god was holy.

The verses that are used as proof of God’s judgment against homosexuals is found in chapter 18. The first reference is in verse. 22

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

The punishment for this violation is exile. Two chapters later we have a restatement of the prohibition:

“If a man lie with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

This seems very straightforward to me. According to Leviticus, if you are bound by the ritual purity laws of the ancient Hebrews as demanded of them by their god, then male to male sex is an offence that is punishable by death (or exile). But we should also remember that these laws are not about right and wrong, good and evil. These are not moral codes like the Ten Commandments. They are rules for being good enough, holy enough, pure enough to participate in the rituals of the temple and to be a member of a particular sanctified community — living in a specific place and time. By my reading of scripture and history, most of us living today do not belong this community nor are we bound by the same covenant with God. And so I would argue that these laws do not apply to us.

I’m aware that there are some who claim that this prohibition against homosexuality is God’s law and should be obeyed — period. If you want to make that argument, I can respect your point of view. But then I want to know how it is that anyone can pick out one prohibition and ignore other 630?

• Do you wear clothing of two different materials say cotton and linen or other fibers? I would point you to Leviticus 19:19.
• Do you enjoy steaks and burgers with pink juices oozing onto the plate? Please read Leviticus 19:26.
• Do you or your children have pierced ears or tattoos? You might want to check out Leviticus 19:28.
• If someone in your family committed adultery, would you refuse to stone them? Then you need to read Leviticus 20:10.

And if you think that only some of these laws still binding and that others can be ignored, then I ask you to take heed of Leviticus chapter 19, vs. 37:

“You shall keep all my statutes and all my ordinances and observe them. I am the Lord.”

My point is this: if you want to ignore some of these laws and make the claim that they no longer apply to us today, then how can you hold your brother accountable to others in that same archaic code? It’s pretty clear to me that we’re not allowed to pick and choose which laws we like and which ones we don’t. All are equally important in the eyes of God and there are many more things that are “abominations” in the sight of the Lord than most of us realize. Again, sit down sometime and read what the Bible says about the holy life.

Another often cited reference to God’s alleged displeasure with homosexuals is the story of Sodom which you will find in Genesis 18:16 to 19:11. (There is a very similar story in Judges19: 10-30) This story begins with Yahweh and two angels making a visit to Abraham and Sarah. God confides to Abraham that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be destroyed because of a “great outcry against them.” God doesn’t elaborate on the violations that have been committed, but it’s clear that the inhabitants of these towns are in serious trouble. Abraham’s nephew, Lot, lives in Sodom and Abraham engages God in a very curious debate with the goal of saving the city. God finally promises Abraham that he will not destroy Sodom if ten “righteous men” can be found there.

The two angels who accompanied God on his earthly journey have already left to check out the complaints that have been made against the citizens of Sodom. When they come into the city they find Lot who just happens to be sitting by the gate. He urges them to come home with him. Now we encounter another huge cultural difference between ourselves and the people of biblical times: In most nomadic cultures of that time, hospitality was not just a gesture of kindness. You didn't just offer a little meal and a fold-out cot in the guest room/office to a stranger who came your way. jty was a source of great honor for both the individual and the community. The rules and regulations about hospitality were highly codified and well known. In these societies, the safety and comfort of the guest was paramount and any sacrifice was acceptable and even required for the sake of the guest. You’ll see what I mean in a minute.

Lot takes these angels, who look like mortal men to him, home for supper and a place to sleep, and in doing this he is offering his guests his protection. When the men of the town catch wind of this, they surround Lot’s home and demanded that he “bring them out so that they might ‘know’ them.”

This was not an invitation to sit up on the roof and chat over a skin of wine. All the scholars that I’ve read agree that in this story the word “know” means sexual knowledge. But many of these scholars also say that the more grievous offense in this story is the violation of the rigid code of hospitality. This violation is the proof of the degradation of Sodom. Lot, following the requirements of the hospitality codes, offers the crowd his two young daughters saying,

“Do with them as you please, only do nothing to these men for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”

In other words, I am their host and I am duty bound to protect them at any cost, including the safety of my own children. The men turn on Lot, and the angels rescue him by pulling him into the house. The men outside are struck blind and the angels reveal to Lot their plans to destroy the place. Why?

“Because of the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord and the Lord has sent us to destroy it.” (Gen 10:13b)

Isn’t this what God told Abraham at the very beginning of the story? The angels don’t mention the mob outside or their intentions to assault Lot and his guests. The future of Sodom hinged on the angels locating ten righteous men, and they could not be found. Again, by my reading of the story, the threat of male-to-male assault is horrible, (but so is Lot’s offer of his young daughters to the mob, at least to my modern mind) but it isn’t the reason for the destruction of the city. Its fate was essentially sealed before the angels ever arrived at the gate.

This story is not about homosexuality. It is about the violent abuse of guests by a city that did not keep to the rules of hospitality. And if that isn’t enough for you, here is a later reference to this story by the prophet Ezekiel who identifies sins of Sodom as pride and “prosperous ease” and refusing to “aid the poor and needy” — sins that are commonplace in our own time and nation. (Ezk. 16 49-50)

Let’s move on to the Christian Scriptures. The Gospels, the book of Acts, most of the letters or Epistles, and the Book of Revelations are silent on the issue of same-gender sex. The Apostle Paul does speak out about same-gender sex in the letters to the Corinthians and to the Romans. Before we talk about his words, I want to tell you a bit about the society that Paul was dealing with. One of the very common (and to most modern people, repugnant) practices of Greco-Roman society was for older men was to take young boys as lovers. Sometimes this was done through a “mentoring” relationship when an older soldier or scholar would select a young man to teach and guide. Many married men indulged in this kind of behavior. Some men who owned slaves used their young male slaves for their own gratification. Often the young male slave was forced to alter his appearance so that he would look more feminine. Some young men sold their services.

Everyone in first-century Greek and Roman society knew about these widespread practices. And Paul spoke against them in his letter to the Corinthians and his letter to the Romans.

In the first letter to the Corinthians, Paul says,

“Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Fornicators, idolaters, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1Corinthians 6:9-10)

The word that we want to look at is ‘“Sodomite.” It’s easy for us to assume that this word means homosexual because that’s the current context. But remember that the word “homosexual” wasn’t used until the mid 1800s. There was no understanding of sexual orientation in Paul’s time. If we look at the Greek word used by Paul, it seems to mean one who engages male prostitutes. That’s not what we mean today when we talk about homosexuals and same gender relationships. So it appears that Paul is speaking only of a particular behavior: one that was associated with lewdness, corruption and the abuse of young men.

It’s also interesting that Paul includes this “sin” as part of a list of sins all of which are bad enough to keep people out of the “kingdom of God.” Maybe we should be paying more attention to some of the other items on the list, like greed or idolatry or revilers or people who use abusive language! Nowhere does Paul say that some sins are worse than others. It’s our modern society that has created a hierarchy of sin with homosexuality at the top of the list.

In the letter to the Romans, Paul’s big concern is not sexual behaviors, but the very serious sin of worshipping false gods that looked like birds and animals and mortal human beings. These idol worshippers engaged in ritual practices that included sexual activity between priestesses and priests, and also eunuch prostitutes who had taken part in self-mutilation rites as a sign of their dedication to the god. These men would dress as women, with veils and jewelry and long flowing dresses. Women who had taken the same vow of devotion would dress in satyr pants with false male organs attached. Ritual orgies were common occurrences in the pagan temples of Greece and Rome.

When Paul condemns this behavior, he claims that these acts are a punishment from the true God upon those who know the true God and refuse to worship him.

“Since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done.” (Rom 1:24-27)

Paul then offers a long list of things that should not be done: envy, murders, deceit, strife, gossiping, slandering, being rebellious toward parents, on and on. (Rom 1:29-30) Again, Paul doesn’t say that one particular sin is greater than any of the others. His point is that people who do these things have a “debased mind” which is a punishment from God.

There is no doubt that Paul is condemning same-sex acts. But his reasons have to do with his word view as a Jew and as one who was trained in the law. He condemns these acts because they are not within the bounds of a universe where everything and everyone had a particular role or place. Men were not to behave like women, nor women like men. Such behavior was “unnatural.” (There is a prohibition against women wearing men’s clothing in the law, another example of keeping people in their rightful place.) Paul also opposed relationships that were abusive one-sided, and violent. What Paul is condemning in Romans were corrupt practices that had nothing to do with love, commitment, and caring for a life-partner. Again, it is the violent debasing attitudes and the worship of false gods that Paul is railing against, not homosexuality as we of the 21^st century understand it. What many of us today would claim as true would never have occurred to Paul; that a certain percentage of men and women are born with an orientation that causes them to be attracted to people of the same gender.

If you saw some of the film clips from the debate during the Episcopal convention, you might remember a gentleman who asked the delegates to vote against Rev. Robinson as a candidate for bishop. He said that his reason for opposing this appointment was that scripture did not affirm homosexuality. That’s true. I would respond that there are many things that scripture does affirm that we would find horrifying: animal sacrifice, slavery, stoning adulterers, incorrigible sons, and brides who are not virgins. The Bible upholds polygamy, selling one’s children into slavery, keeping concubines, and mutilation as a form of punishment. This short list doesn’t begin to address the affirmations that most of us would find either silly or distressing.

There is a clear prohibition against divorce in both Jewish and Christian scriptures. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus speaks strongly against remarriage after divorce (Matt 5: 31) How many of our modern-day evangelists have violated this one? How many Christian clergy have blessed second and even third marriages?

Let me be clear. I’m not rejecting the Bible as a source of human wisdom and tradition. What I am rejecting is the idea that the ethics and mores of a culture that is thousands of years old are the absolute measure of human love and relationships today. Every Christian and Jew that I know decides to keep some parts of the Bible as valuable for their lives and to ignore those laws and ordinances that seem out of place in our world today. Science, psychology, and human reason have brought us to a new understanding of human nature and human needs. Some would say that these too are gifts from God, to be used with compassion and wisdom. And I would agree.

I would close with words from the First Epistle of John, words that I often use in a Service of Union.

“Love one another. For love is of God and those who love know God.”

May it be so.

UUC Home Page

Reverend Brownlie Home Page