What does the Bible actually say about being gay?

BBC ^ | October 23, 2003 | BBC

[ejdrapes]

What does the Bible actually say about being gay?

Confused how two groups of church-goers can have such conflicting views about whether it's OK to be gay?

Both sides of the debate about homosexuality in the church, which threatens to split the worldwide Anglican church, hold their views sincerely and after much study. So how can their views be so contradictory?

The Bible makes very few mentions of homosexuality - lesbianism isn't mentioned at all in the Old Testament - and as the examples below show, interpretations of the verses that do exist differ hugely.

Following each of the verses below is a brief illustration of what a hardline pro- and anti-gay position might be. (Most Christians hold views somewhere in between these two stances.)

An illustration of the division can be seen by what either side might say about the friendship in the Old Testament between David and Jonathan. One verse reads: "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; dear and delightful you were to me; your love for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women."

PRO-GAY A pro-gay position might be that this is a clear indication that King David had a gay relationship, and to pretend otherwise is naive.

ANTI-GAY An anti-gay opinion might be that the friendship between the two men was exactly that - a very close and loyal allegiance.

Similarly, the tale of Sodom is often debated. In it, Lot has two angels staying in his house. The men of Sodom surrounded the house. "They called to Lot and asked him where the men were who had entered his house that night. 'Bring them out,' they shouted, 'so that we might have intercourse with them.'"

To protect his visitors from an act which Lot describes as "wicked", he offers the crowd his two virgin daughters instead. The crowd are not satisfied and break the door down - the angels then make the intruders blind and Sodom is eventually destroyed by "fire and brimstone".

ANTI-GAY An anti-gay argument might say this story demonstrates the immorality of homosexuality, as has been accepted for generations, hence the term sodomy. Elsewhere in Genesis, God says of the men: "Their sin is very grave." It's an example of behaviour degenerating.

PRO-GAY Of course the men's behaviour was wicked, but it was wicked because it's a tale of sexual assault and rape. When Jesus mentions Sodom, hundreds of years later, it appears to be in a context of a discussion of hospitality, rather than one of sexual morality.

There are several verses in the Bible which are similarly contested - there are however a much smaller number of seemingly clear statements. The most famous of them is probably from Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination."

ANTI-GAY An anti-gay position would be that this line is unambiguous. It is also repeated elsewhere in the book. The speaker of the words is God, so this is an explicit indication that homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes. It was one of the sins that justified God in giving the land of Canaan to the Israelites

PRO-GAY A pro-gay argument might say that other verses in the same book forbid a wide range of sexual activities, including having sex with a woman who is having her period. This is an indication that the passage embodies specific cultural values rather than God's law.

There is some debate about how relevant rules in the Old Testament are to Christians. Some would say they are binding, since Jesus said he did not come to abolish the old laws. Others would say that Jesus set Christians free from the old laws, highlighting instead that people should love God and their neighbour.

Jesus himself says nothing explicitly about homosexuality. There are though two statements by him which have been interpreted as having a bearing on the subject.

"[A] man shall leave his father and mother, and be made one with his wife; and the two shall become one flesh."

ANTI-GAY This indicates Jesus saw heterosexual relations as the proper way of behaving.

PRO-GAY Jesus is actually talking about the sanctity of heterosexual marriage

Later in the same conversation, after Jesus has spoken about divorce, the disciples say to him it is better not to marry at all. Jesus says: "That is something which not everyone can accept, but only those for whom God has appointed it. For while some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, or made so by men, there are others who have themselves renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let those accept it who can."

PRO-GAY This shows that Jesus is more concerned with people looking after their own relationship with God, than with enforcement of rules. The reference to being "born so" indicates that heterosexual marriage is fine for those who are heterosexual, but it's OK to be different. Again and again Jesus reaches out to those on the margins of society, like prostitutes and tax collectors, to include them.

ANTI-GAY Jesus here is actually talking about people who were born incapable of having children, or people who were castrated - not about gays. He is actually saying that marriage and chastity are both within God's purpose. Jesus does appeal to the sinners, but once he has called them, he tells them to go and sin no more.

The letters of St Paul provide the other traditional support for the position that homosexuality is sinful. He writes: "God has given [people who worship false gods] up to shameful passions. Their women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and their men in turn, giving up natural relations with women burn with lust for one another; males behave indecently with males and paid in their own persons the fitting wage of such perversion."

Paul later writes: "Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers of drunkards of slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God."

PRO-GAY A pro-gay position might be that the word Paul uses for homosexual here could alternatively be translated as "male prostitute". In any case, Paul's writings are clearly of his time, and there are plenty of other verses which people have no difficulty in ignoring - for instance: "a woman brings shame on her head if she prays or prophesies bare-headed; it is as bad as if her head were shaved." This should be viewed like that.

ANTI-GAY Anti-gay argument might say this line is crystal clear in establishing that Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible. Paul is actually quite clearly referring to homosexual behaviour, and includes lesbianism. You can't just pretend that St Paul, who did so much to influence our understanding of Jesus, didn't know what he was talking about. He's clear that homosexuality is an offence against God and against people's own bodies.

Part of the reason the views diverge so much is because Christians think of the Bible differently. Some see it as literally the word of God, divine inspiration which humans should not question. Others see it rather as a book which is a witness to God's message, but one which was written by humans and thus has flaws.

Trying to find common ground between the two positions is no simple matter - one of the reasons that Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is having such a tricky job keeping everyone on board.

Quotations are taken from the New English Bible.

References are on this page

[AppyPappy]

Here's the literal (and yes I have the Greek for all of it):

Rom 1:24 Wherefore1352 God2316 also2532 gave them up3860, 846 to1519 uncleanness167 through1722 the3588 lusts1939 of their own848 hearts,2588 to dishonor818 their own848 bodies4983 between1722 themselves:1438
Rom 1:25 Who3748 changed3337 the3588 truth225 of God2316 into1722 a lie,5579 and2532 worshiped4573 and2532 served3000 the3588 creature2937 more than3844 the3588 Creator,2936 who3739 is2076 blessed2128 forever.1519, 165 Amen.281
Rom 1:26 For this cause1223, 5124 God2316 gave them up3860, 846 unto1519 vile819 affections:3806 for1063 even5037, (3739) their848 women2338 did change3337 the3588 natural5446 use5540 into1519 that3588 which is against3844 nature:5449
Rom 1:27 And5037 likewise3668 also2532 the3588 men,730 leaving863 the3588 natural5446 use5540 of the3588 woman,2338 burned1572 in1722 their848 lust3715 one toward another;240, 1519 men730 with1722 men730 working2716 that which is unseemly,808 and2532 receiving618 in1722 themselves1438 that recompense489 of their848 error4106 which3739 was meet.1163

Sorry about the numbers, they signify the original Greek.

[AppyPappy]

Ooops....Paul was trying to avoid being "crude" while also leaving the door open against sexual sin lest people decide to parse his words into accepting some types of sexual sin. That's why he used words like "unnatural". There is only ONE natural way to have sex.

[Kharis13]

Why don't we discuss fornicators,slanderers,thieves,adulterers,like we do homosexuals?

I believe it's because fornicators, slanderers. thieves and adulterers don't have an agenda to make their "lifestyle" accepted as the norm.

[MEG33]

I am glad I asked the question.I have received many good answers.

[longtermmemmory]

Homosexuals will always be in "your face", its part of their sexual fetish to be as intrusive as possible.

[longtermmemmory]

its a line out of sparticus

[mel]

That will be great,

[longtermmemmory]

the original BBC page is obvioulsly biased to the pro-homosexual sect.

They are only putting on pro-homosexual or anti-christian views.

It is clear this is a hit piece intented to make the fact society at large does NOT accept homosexuals somehow does not exist. They are confusing tollerance with acceptance. I can tollerate their activities in the privacy in the bedroom but I in no way have to accept it.

[jocon307]

"...the author has already accorded the pro-homosexual side a great deal of legitimacy in this matter that it has never had."

Well, I see what you mean, but I don't think you can really pin it on this author. Its obvious some of these arguments have found favor among many Bible-savy Christians who should know better. This author is just some person writing for the BBC, the Episcopal church is about to fall apart over that horrid man, Robinson. So there's some legitimacy (however illegitimate) that's been granted heretofore.

I'm not really sure what to think about the shrimp, but I do remember Dr. Laura saying how very, very many of the commandments (after the top several) are about how to treat your livestock, or somesuch.

In all reality I feel the way I do about homosexuality for the same reasons I feel the way I do about abortion. I think both go against nature. I have no reason to doubt I would feel the same way about these issues even if I were a stone-cold Atheist. And my much beloved brother was a homosexual, who died of AIDS, so it's not in unfamiliarity that I form my conclusions.

What is MOST annoying, however, are the people who cite what they like, from the Bible - or wherever - when it suits their agenda, and then ignore that source otherwise. I don't think you can find ANY shred of support for abortion in the Bible, so maybe Rev. Robinson, et al. should be challenged on that point.

[longtermmemmory]

I think it can very easily be pinned on this author. This is clearly a hit piece to legitimize homosexuality. The use of "gay" vs homosexual is just one indicator.

Selective reading of the bible can be insinterprited to legitimize homosexual behavior. Given the strong impulse that sexual satifaction can be (how many people have destroyed their lives over 'getin some'?) it is not surprissing that leftist would go to extremes to achieve acceptance (beyond mere tollerance) through faulty and convoluted logic. Whether its trying to achieve legitimacy through scientific or religious means is not relevant, what is relevant is that there is an agenda to mainstream the homosexual behavior in schools and society in general.

[Mark17]

He said the same about eating shrimp.

No, He didn't.

[Mark17]

But not Jesus. In fact, He never said a word on the subject. He had plenty to say on divorce, though, and that practice is promoted by the government. Go figure.

He did not in scripture, but His prophets did, and you are right, He did have a lot to say about divorce. I think no fault divorce really sucks. It happened to me.

[winker]

Sodom & Gomorra!....Equals Burned out Cinder; does that satisfy your curriosity?

[JesseHousman]

...If people like you would drop their obsession with gays...

I have no obsession with gays, Bama Dave, and I'll give you the break you requested

I suggest that it is you who have the obsession with homosexuals!

Furthermore, I strongly suggest that (as a homosexual sycophant) you receive help.

Pray!

[JesseHousman]

...the gays would probably stop being so "in your face" with their agenda...

Like I said....get out of my face satan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Donaeus]

RE: David's women Whaaaaahhhhh!!!! That is one of those amazingly memorable quotes that I will cherish and share with the grandkids...when they are older of course. There were so many times growing up that I truly felt for my Dad being in a house with one wife and four daughters. I know more than once he thought he'd lose it. I can't imagine the 1,000 David had AND the children!!