by Dr. Christy Capen, and revised by me

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS... EVEN IF YOU ONLY HAVE TIME TO READ IT ONE PARAGRAPH AT A TIME. I HAVE ADDED MY OWN COMMENTARY IN BOLD CAPS BELOW. YOU SHOULD FEEL FREE TO COMMENT AS WELL. I HOPE THIS HELPS SOMEONE!

-CHRISTY

In our Judeo-Christian society, the documents collectively known as the Bible serve as the primary guide on most issues. It is interesting that many Christians take literally the references to homosexual acts, while interpreting other text with great flexibility. One person reported listening to a nationally-known woman speak in her campaign against homosexuality. She spent quite a bit of time quoting impressively from Leviticus. The listener accepted much of what the speaker said until he realized that, by Levitical standards, the crusader herself had broken many biblical laws she spoke in church (1 Corinthians 14:34), she taught men (1 Timothy 2:12), she was wearing a dress made of cotton and polyester (Deuteronomy 22:11), and others of which he was probably unaware.

What does the Bible really say about homosexuality? Actually, very little. Most significantly, Jesus said nothing at all. Considering the relatively small amount of attention the Bible pays to the subject, we must ask ourselves why this is such a volatile issue. Other subjects about which the scriptures say a great deal (e.g. judgment, pride, hypocrisy) receive much less passionate attention. Before looking at specific passages, it is important to note that everyone understands the scriptures based on, and through, the light of what they have been taught. The Bible was not written in a cultural void, and many of its instructions and laws are simply classified as less relevant today (e.g. prohibition against eating pork).

Nowhere does the Bible actually address the idea of persons being lesbian or gay. The statements are, without exception, directed to certain homosexual acts. Early writers had no understanding of homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. That truth is a relatively recent discovery. The biblical authors were referring to homosexual acts performed by persons they assumed were heterosexuals.

The Sodom Story
A chief text used to condemn homosexuality is the Sodom story (Genesis 19:1-29), often interpreted as showing God's abhorrence of homosexuality. In the story, two angels, in the form of men, are sent to the home of Lot in Sodom. While they are there, the men of the city both young and old, surrounded the house - everyone without exception and demanded that the visitors be brought out so that we might know them. (Genesis 19: 4-5) Lot begged the men to leave his guests alone and take his daughters instead. The men of the city became angry and stormed the door. As a result, they were all struck blind by the angels.

There are several problems with the traditional interpretation of this passage. Whether or not the intent of the men of Sodom was sexual, the inhospitality and injustice coming from the mob, and that generally characterized the community, were the sin of Sodom. (Ezekial 16:49-50, Isaiah 13:19, Jeremiah 49:18; 50:40) Jesus himself refers to the inhospitality of Sodom. (Luke 10:10-13) If the men were indeed homosexuals, then why would Lot offer them his daughters? What is threatened here is rape. The significant point, then, is that all rape is considered horrible by God. The story deserves another reading.

It should be noted that not all of the men of Sodom could have been homosexual or there would have been no need to destroy them. If they had all been homosexuals, they would have all died off leaving no heirs. Quite likely, they were a mixed group of evil men attempting to be abusive to people who were different. Ironically, lesbian and gay people are often the victim of that same sin.
Although the traditional interpretation of the Sodom story fails as an argument against homosexuality, there are several other Old Testament passages that do condemn homosexual acts. Again, it should be noted that these passages do not deal with same-sex orientation nor is there any reference to genital love between lesbian or gay persons.

THE SIN OF SODOM: HERE IS A LIST OF THINGS FOR WHICH THE BIBLE CONDEMS THE SODOMITES. PRIDE, EXCESS OF FOOD, BEING PROSPEROUS BUT REFUSING TO AIDE THE NEEDY, EXPOSING THEIR PRIVATE PARTS TO OTHERS, HATING FOREIGNERS, ASSAULTING THEIR NEIGHBORS WIFE, RAPING AND PILAGING THEIR NEIGHBORS LAND AND HOUSE. And MOST IMPORTANTLY THEY WERE IMPIOUS TO THE DIVINITY! WHEN ONE TALKS ABOUT THE SIN OF SODOM THIS IS WHAT IS MEANT. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT MENTIONED HERE. RAPE IS THE ONLY SEXUAL ACT THAT CAN BE INTERPRETETED FROM THIS PASSAGE, AND AS STATED BY THE ABOVE AUTHOR IS WRONG WHETHER IT BE BETWEEN PEOPLE OF THE SAME GENDER OR NOT! THE NATURAL LOVE BETWEEN 2 BEINGS OF THE SAME GENDER IS NOT WHAT IS CONDEMED IN THIS PASSAGE.

Homosexual Acts
Of thousands of Old Testament passages, only two make explicit reference to homosexual acts: Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Both of these passages are a part of the Levitical holiness code, which is not kept by any Christian group. If it was enforced, almost every Christian would be excommunicated or executed. It has been logically argued that science and progress have made many of the Levitical laws irrelevant. For example, fundamentalist author Tim LaHaye states that, although Levitical laws prohibit intercourse during menstruation, medical authorities do not view it as harmful, and, therefore, it should not be viewed as sinful. He further explains, Those laws were given 3,500 years ago before showers and baths were convenient, before tampons, disinfectants and other improved means of sanitation had been invented. (The Act of Marriage, p.275) With that, LaHaye makes this law irrelevant and rightly so. Ironically, though, in his book, The Unhappy Gay, the Levitical laws are one of the chief cornerstones of his arguments. Much of the holiness code is now irrelevant for us as moral law. Thus, having children, which was of exceptional importance to the early Hebrews, is now made less relevant by overpopulation, just as the prohibition against eating pork and shellfish has been made irrelevant by refrigeration.

THIS PASSAGE IS AN EXCELLENT DEMONSTRATION ABOUT HOW MANY OF THE LAWS OF THE BIBLE ARE BASED HEAVILY ON CULTURE AND NECCESSITY. (IM NOT SAYING THERE IS NO MORAL OR ETHICAL VALUE IN THE BIBLE JUST THAT MANY OF THE SPECIFIC LAWS CLEARLY SERVED A PURPOSE BOUND TO THAT ERA/CULTURE.) DURING THIS TIME PERIOD CIVILIZATION WAS PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH SURVIVAL. UNLIKE THE PROBLEMS WE FACE TODAY, THEY FACED AN UNDERPOPULATION PROBLEM. THEREFORE, IT WAS OF UTMOST OF IMPORTANCE FOR THE FAMILY TO CONTINUE THEIR LEGACY BY MARRYING OFF THEIR YOUNG BOYS AND GIRLS AS EARLY AS THEY COULD. THIS ALLOWED THEM TO MAXIMIZE THE FERTILITY OF A COUPLE AND BEGIN REPRODUCING SHORTLY AFTER THE FEMALE BEGAN MENSES (AROUND AGE 12-13) UP UNTIL SHORTLY BEFORE SHE REACHED MENOPAUSE (AGES 35- 40. KEEP IN MIND THAT ALTHOUGH THE BIBLE STATES SOME PEOPLE WERE NEARLY 400 YRS OLD. THEIR LIFE SPAN WAS ABOUT HALF OF WHAT OUR IS NOW. TODAY'S WOMEN ENTER MENSES AROUND 50.) RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL BELIEFS WERE CONSTRUCTED ON A BASIS OF THE CONTINUITY ON THEIR CIVILIZATION WHICH MEANT THEY HAD TO REPRODUCE. IN ADDITION, ANY KIND OF SEXUAL ACT (ORAL/FOREPLAY) WAS WRONG. SEXUAL ACTIVITY WAS ONLY TO REPRODUCE THIS IS WHY BIRTH CONTROL IS SO CONTROVESIAL FOR MANY CHRISTIANS, EVEN TODAY! HAVING INTERCOURSE WHILE ONE IS MENSTRUATING CLEARY THEN WOULD NOT RESULT IN OFFSPRING.

The Bible never addresses the issue of homosexual love, yet it does have several beautiful examples of same-sex love. David's love for Jonathan was said to exceed his love for women. (2 Samuel 1:26) Ruth's relationship with Naomi is an example of a deep, bonding love, and Ruths words of covenant to Naomi are often used in heterosexual wedding ceremonies. (Ruth 1:16-17) The Bible clearly values love between persons of the same sex.

Jesus' Attitude
In the New Testament there is no record of Jesus saying anything about homosexuality. This ought to strike us as very odd in light of the great threat to Christianity, family life and the American way that some would have us believe homosexuality is. Jesus saw injustice and religious hypocrisy as a far greater threat to the Realm of God.


Paul's References
Paul's statement in Romans 1:18-32 has been taken as the strongest New Testament rejection of homosexuality. He is concerned about the influence of the pagan culture on the Roman Christians. After giving a detailed description of a world that exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator, he continues, Therefore, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lusts for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty of their perversion.

A complete reading of these passages, in their original context, clearly shows that what Paul was actually referring to was homosexual temple prostitution, which was performed by various cults (though far more cults used heterosexual prostitution). Again, Paul is not referring to same-sex love, and he clearly has no concept of persons for whom this lifestyle is natural.

Paul's other reference to homosexual acts in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is similar to 1 Timothy 1:8-11. These two passages contain lists of persons to be excluded from the Realm of God. The interpretation of these passages depends on two Greek words that have always presented a problem for translators. In the King James Version, they are translated effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind. In the Revised Standard Version, they were combined and rendered as homosexuals, however, these are not the Greek words for homosexual, so these translations reflects the scholars' bias. The New International Version illustrates the difference in these two words by translating them male prostitute and homosexual offenders. The Jerusalem Bible uses the terms catamites and sodomites. Catamites were youth kept especially for sexual purpose, who were usually paid large sums of money. Neither passage refers to persons of same-sex orientation but to people who used their sexuality for personal gain.

The Love of Christ
Jesus did a great deal to change many social customs and ideas. He elevated the position of women, and, ultimately, they were his best and most faithful disciples. He did this by example and by commandments that were absolutely inclusive of the rights of all people. Yet, in the name of the Christ whose love encompassed all, the Church has been the most homophobic of all institutions. This should not be surprising when we realize that the Church is still the largest institution which is primarily racially segregated.

The final, and central, message of the New Testament is that ALL persons are loved by God so much that God's Son was sent as a means of redemption from a disease by which we are all afflicted. The cure for this disease cannot be found in any set of actions. Neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality is redemptive. God's love through Christ was given to all people.