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

[Fzob]

So how can their views be so contradictory?

There are only contradictory because one view represents truth based on a regulative interpretation of the Bible and the other interpretation is base on lies intended to deceive.

Homosexuality has nearly universally been viewed as a perversion by societies. A perversion that has been tolerated and by the same societies.

[MEG33]

LOL..but notice we are still much tougher on homosexuals than the other things I listed.I would not want a priest or minister to be any of those things,however.

[ovrtaxt]

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

In fact, that's how I approach gay people with the Gospel. It's much more effective if you speak about deliverance from sin in general, common to all, than focusing in on the act of homosexuality.

[Noachian]

This shows that radical liberals will open anything to an interpretation that supports their agenda -- even the Bible.

Nothing has changed in 2000 years, we have a Supreme Court doing the same thing today with our Constitution.

[tbpiper]

Intercourse

I think the phrase is 'that we might know them'. The word 'know' means to have carnal knowledge. This artilce just highlights some old and very shallow scholarship.

[Fzob]

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

Because fornicators, slanderers, thieves, adulterers are not trying to convince the whole world that the bible says it's ok to fornicate slander, steal, commit adultery and convince everyone that the above is normal and acceptable behavior.

[Aquinasfan]

Intercourse can also mean to "join in conversation".

LOL! And BBC can also mean Broadcasting Bull Crap.

[Jonah Hex]

Agreed. I know I teach my kids those acts are sins and managed (so far) to set a good example.

[HarleyD]

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Heb 13:8

If it was an abonination back then it still is today and always will be.

[mtbopfuyn]

Seems pretty plain to me, and I'm not buying into those flimsy gay excuses.

[HarleyD]

"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.

This was rich. I missed this. I don't remember a commandment, "Thou shall act like Martha Stewart." :O)

[jocon307]

Well meg, those people are certainly considered sinners, although I admit the fornicators & adulterers have been getting a bit of a break lately. But I doubt the Episcopals would be nominating for Bishop some heterosexual lothario who had mutliple affairs or just catted around. And as for the drunks, the Baptists, at least, maybe others, certainly other individuals, consider drinking at all a sin. (Mormons, there are some others.)

Notice that none of these offenses are said to be equivalent to murder or rape or other violent acts. So I think these must be "sins" that many feel are not so sinful. Do any of us really think that human nature has changed much in two thousand, or six thousand, or ten thousand years? I believe it hasn't changed at all.

[Tailgunner Joe]

quite disgusting.

[MEG33]

Seen a movie,magazine or TV program lately?Remember the open marriage craze and "consenting adults" ,or sex education,passing out condoms in school?Our own Surgeon General's take on teen age sex?I don't think anyone has claimed it is Biblically approved of but certainly they bring up King David.

I simply think we can be hypocrites if we only concentrate on homosexuality.I find it thought provoking that slandering is listed with these things.Gives one pause when flame wars go over the line!

[mdmathis6]

What complicates the arguement, are the passages in which Johnathan is queried by Saul as to the where abouts of David(The famous ARROW story in which David asks Jonathan to ascertain his father's intentions towards him). Saul out and out accuses Jonathan of having feelings for David "like a woman", for Saul suspects Jonathan is not telling him the truth. Nevertheless, Jonathan himself has had children(Nathan who never spawned kings but is suspected to be part of the lineage of Mary..who birthed the king of kings...Nathan was crippled as a child but I guess managed to get a wife and had kids). If David and Jonathan had had a homosexual relationship...the PROPHET NATHAN I'm sure would have come around to condemn it and pronounce God's curse!

[Adder]

There is something particularly disgusting when mo's and their apologists take perfectly good and straight[pun intended] words and twist them into a justification for depravity.
Admittedly, the story of Daniel and Jonathan could be read as a "love" story in the physical sense. But that ignores the host of other documents of a similar time where men profess their love for one another. In those it is used more in the sense of commeraderie, the love of a soldier for his fellow soldiers, for the deep friendships that develope, for the respect that men hold for one another in certain circumstances. Its trite but its like a sports team or fishing buddies, or just best friends.
The major religions all hold that mo-ism is wrong and is to be avoided. That just sticks in these people's craw so they make these unsubstantiated and unsupportable attacks. Unfortunately, too many are too willing to ignore what is right, what is TRUE, to be "welcoming" to the butt rangers. I believe it is Revalations that mentions something about evil being good and good, evil. Id est demonstratum.

[Skooz]

He said the same about eating shrimp.

God set down dietary laws in the Law.

Jesus fulfilled the Law and thus, did away with the provisions of the Law (dietary restrictions, animal sacrifice, a human high priest, etc).

The dietary and sacrificial prescriptions of the Law are specifically removed in the New Testament books of Acts, Galatians, and Hebrews.

The New Testament continues to call homosexual relations a sin and an abomination.

[TheCrusader]

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

Because they are not the same as the sin of homosexuality, which is a sin against both God and nature. Even more importantly, there are no organized groups out there proudly calling themselves "theives and adulterers", who go about trying to legitimize their sin by pushing for minority status and asking for public funding for their health care, and even promoting their filth amongst our children in public schools. Get it yet?

[JesseHousman]

What do you think about your article?

If you believe homosexual acts are somehow rendered paradoxical, then you believe falsely. Homosexuality is disgusting to true Christians who exercise logical thinking. Of course one doesn't have to be a genius to understand that God, through His Word, considers homosexual acts an abomination deserving of a one-way ticket to hell.

[StonyBurk]

the hermeneutic is wrong-- to be fair to the Scripture one
must attempt to discern what a word meant to the audiance
in the Old Testament Hebrew via studies in time and culture. In New Testament Greek in similar terms. the interpretation in terms of anti-Gay-- or Gay is ethocentric and junk science in other words B.S.