Gay Umbrella

This is the handout for the discussion on Sunday @ Educational Lekgotla

Handout for The Bible on Homosexuality Presentation

Date: 13/12/09
Presenter: Donna A M Smith

INTRODUCTION
Gay and lesbian people often spend most of their lives in a type of no-man’s land between self-loathing and repudiation of the religious traditions that nurtured them, because they can’t find the way to reconcile their sexuality and their spirituality.

But isn’t our sexual orientation a natural, neutral phenomenon, one of the attributes with which we are born and over which we have no control, like our skin/hair/eye colour, blood type, gender? And, if so, is there really any justification for the condemnation of homosexuality on religious grounds?

This presentation explores these and other questions that arise in this area. It references all the Bible passages that have been cited in support of homo-prejudice and hatred, namely the well-worn tale of Sodom and Gomorrah, the purity laws of Leviticus, and Paul’s letters to the Romans, the Corinthians and his beloved Timothy. It also challenges the traditional view of the creation story as supporting the notion that hetero-sexuality is divinely-ordained, and considers the role-positive implications of the stories of David and Jonathan, and Naomi and Ruth.

Source materials: Daniel Helminiak’s seminal work, “What the Bible really says about homosexuality” (1994, Alamo Square Press, CA, USA); and a booklet titled “The Bible and Homosexuality”, written for the benefit of the Anglican Church by Bishop David Russel (2004, Salty Print, Cape Town, SA). Biblical quotes are taken from the New Revised Standard Version (1989, National Council of the Churches of Christ, USA).

A note on Biblical interpretation:
Two approaches are used here: (1) If all the historical, cultural and language factors are taken into account, the Bible cannot possibly be read as condemning homosexuality per se. Indeed, when one considers that, originally, the Bible was an oral tradition that was first put into writing in the language of the people to whom the tradition belonged, namely Hebrew, then translated into Greek, and later back into Hebrew, and from there into Latin, which was in turn translated into English; and that, driven by various social and political agendas, there have been countless versions and revisions of the English translation, one or other of which is what we of the modern English-speaking world now use as our primary source of scripture; it is difficult to escape the argument that, at the very least, what we know as “the Bible” requires very careful scrutiny before we can lay any claims to understanding what it says, on this, or any other, point.

(2) Given the evolution in thinking across other fields of knowledge, like psychology, and changes in the Church’s understanding of the nature of God, and of sexuality, among other things, it is now time for a more inclusive approach, based on the love and non-judgement teachings of Jesus.

Key questions:
What is sin?
What does, in fact, the Bible condemn in this hotly-debated area – is it the orientation, or certain conduct?
How do we distinguish between the myths and perceptions which have, in the past, fomented (self-) hatred and (internal) conflicts, and the values and beliefs that should guide our thinking?

SODOM AND GOMORRAH
The general feeling is that God destroyed these twin cities as punishment for their “sin” of homosexuality, leading to word derivatives like “sodomy” and “sodomite” respectively referring, we are reliably informed by the Concise Oxford (10th edition), to anal intercourse, and a person who indulges in the practise. This definition is neutral enough, but I have never heard these words used with reference to heterosexuals, except in Victorian-era literature.

Does the story of Sodom and Gomorrah have anything to do with male-male sexual activity? And, if so, does it represent or contain an absolute condemnation, or even any pronouncements with regard to the morality or sinfulness, of homosexuality per se? Only a thorough and objective reading of the whole story, including the run-up to the events leading to the cities’ destruction, can provide credible answers.

The stage is set in chapter 13, which describes the arrival of Abraham and his family, including Lot, in the Promised Land, and recounts their parting of ways, with Lot taking up residence in Sodom. The story continues in chapter 19, at verses 1 – 13, with God sending His angelic emissaries to the city to check the reports of its wickedness and, if they were true, to destroy it. The angels become Lot’s guests for the night. This is the crucial passage: But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, ‘where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.’

The scene becomes quite ugly, with the men threatening violence to Lot when he refuses their demands, and offers his daughters instead. The angels rescue him, warn him to escape with his loved ones, then destroy the city as instructed.

What was it, exactly, that these “men of Sodom” wanted with the angels? This is, in fact, one of the ten places in the Bible where the word “know” refers to sexual intercourse. Lot’s offer of his daughters, who had “not known a man”, for the men to “do to them as [they] please[d]”, supports the sexual connotations. Some scholars still contend, however, that it could be that the men simply wanted to find out about these visitors – who they were, and what was their business there.

Either way, it’s clear that they are not very hospitable to strangers. They refer to Lot, with some hostility, as an “alien” who now wants to judge them, and when the heavenly visitors first arrived, Lot was very anxious to get them into the safety of his home. And this is the crux of the matter. In those times and cultures, kindness and hospitality to travellers in the harsh desert territories was a strict social rule – something in the nature of a moral code – that was one of the indicators of just, righteous living. To be abusive and unwelcoming towards strangers was a serious offence, not only against humanity, but against God Himself.

And so the threats and hostility were bad enough; but if they also wanted to have forced sex with Lot’s guests, it would have been even worse, because male-male rape was one of the most heinous forms of humiliation and abuse recognized by those societies and, perhaps, ours still. The word “sodomise” in the Concise Oxford, 10th edition, carries this notation: “...from medieval Latin sodomia, from late Latin peccatum Sodomiticun ‘sin of Sodom’ (after Genesis 19:5, which implies that the men of Sodom practised homosexual rape).” The fact that Lot was willing to sacrifice his own daughters is a very telling indication of the horror with which male-male rape was viewed (as much as it also provided a clue as to the status of women in those cultures!) It also underscores the fact that the men’s motivation was not a homosexual desire, but rather a need to demonstrate power and domination, which Lot was clearly hoping could just as well be satisfied by a couple of (female) virgins.

So, even on the face of it, the sin and wickedness of Sodom had less to do with homosexuality, and more to do with abuse and inhospitality, of which homosexual rape is an extreme example. But, to the extent that further analysis is necessary, the Bible is actually its own best interpreter in this regard. At Ezekiel 16:49 – 50, it is explained quite clearly: “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.”

In Jeremiah 23, after bemoaning a list of ills among the priests and prophets, including adultery, ungodliness, worshipping of false gods, leading the people astray, lies, and strengthening the hand of evildoers, the prophet, speaking for the Lord God Jehovah says, at verse 14, “all of them have become like Sodom to me, and its inhabitants like Gomorrah.” This is a clear reference to the general wickedness and sinfulness with which the names Sodom and Gomorrah had become synonymous.

There is also the little discussed element of the angelic nature of Lot’s guests; they were, after all, the messengers of God, and inhospitality towards them was, although the Sodomites didn’t know it, a sign of disrespect for the Almighty Himself. In the New Testament, Jesus is reported as instructing his disciples to shake from their feet the very dust of any town where their gospel of healing, salvation and peace was not favourably received: Matt 10: 5 – 15. “Truly I tell you”, he warns ominously, at verse 15, “it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of Judgment, than for that town.” In Jesus’ time, Sodom had become a classic example of mankind rejecting the messengers, and, by extension, the message, of God, which is always a recipe for disaster.

THE LEVITICUS HOLINESS CODE (or Purity Laws)
At Leviticus chapter 18 verse 22 we are warned: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” According to chapter 20 verse 13, this offence carries the death penalty: “If a man lies 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.”

Even on a literal interpretation of the Bible, it’s worth arguing that the prohibition in Leviticus is not against having sex with a man per se, but, rather, against doing it lying down! It could equally be contended that the prohibition is actually against bisexuality – sleeping with a man “as with a woman” – or that it simply means one must not use the same methods and techniques with the different genders.

In fact, as far as literal interpretations go, this one might make the most sense, if one considers that Leviticus lists a number of other offences that involve a mixing of media, for eg, chapter 19 verse 19: “…You shall not let your animals breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall you put on a garment made of different materials.”

It is clear, then, that even a literalistic approach to interpreting these passages does not always and necessarily lead to a conclusion that homosexuality or homosexual acts per se are wrong or sinful. And the more useful and accurate historical-critical approach that is advocated by Helminiak makes an even stronger case for a non-condemnatory reading of Leviticus.

For this approach, one has to look at, among other things, the literal context of the so-called condemnation. In doing so, there are two questions we must consider: (1) where in the text do these passages appear; and (2) what were the actual words used in the original language of the text?

(1) The prohibition against male-male sex is found in that part of Leviticus known as the “Holiness Code” or, more popularly, the Purity Laws. All of the stipulations here are aimed at ensuring that the Jews maintain the purity of their status as God’s chosen people, holy and “set apart”. It was critical that they not adopt the practices of the heathen people whom they had driven out of their “promised land”.

The Purity Laws are written like any other good penal code. First, there is a preamble indicating the general intent of the code, then descriptions of various offences, usually in categories, in some cases giving detailed explanations and regulations, after which the penalties are set out.

The first list of prohibitions, which are all sexual in nature, includes incest, adultery, and bestiality, Chapter 20 verse 26, concludes the penal section of the Code: “You shall be holy to me; for I the Lord am holy, and I have separated you from the other peoples, to be mine.”

It seems clear that the intent of the Holiness Code of Leviticus was never to invest the many and varied acts or practices listed there with any quality of immorality or sinfulness, but rather to identify those “pagan” practices which should be avoided, in order to preserve the purity of the Jewish “breed”, so to speak. And this is the context in which homo-erotic activity is mentioned.

A violation of these Purity Laws in Leviticus would be an act of treason for which, even today, in many of the world’s legal systems, the prescribed penalty is capital punishment. In this regard, it’s interesting to note that Leviticus stipulates the death penalty for offences as various – and, in some cases, seemingly minor – as giving one’s child into the service of the local deity, cursing one’s father and mother, adultery, sleeping with one’s daughter-in-law or mother-in-law and, of course, male-male sex.

And so there is more than a hint of hypocrisy and double standards in the stigmatization and marginalization of gay and lesbian people in present times on the basis of these passages in Leviticus, while adultery and intra-family affairs are just fodder for the gossip mills, and the cursing of one’s parents is so commonplace as to hardly merit the raising of an eyebrow.

(2) A full, scholastic examination of the actual words used in both the original Hebrew and the first Greek translations, now reading “abomination” in modern English translations, will also bear out this interpretation.

Suffice to say, for these purposes, that the original writers and translators chose to use words that translate literally to mean “ritual impurity or uncleanness” – something taboo, or socially unacceptable – over words that would translate into “legally or morally wrong”, which were equally available to them, and which are used elsewhere in the text.

This choice of words must have some significance; it must be that there was never any intention of pronouncing on the moral nature of any of these acts. They are abominations because they strike at the very heart of what it meant to be a Jew, and not for any other reason.

Another significant aspect of the literal context is that there is no reference to female same sex relations. This is in itself a powerful argument against the wholesale condemnation and ostracisation of gay and lesbian people on the basis of the Leviticus passages. The text is very gender-specific, and it is clear that it’s not one of those places where the masculine gender is taken to include the feminine. So could it mean that, whereas male homosexuality is wrong, lesbianism is okay?

The only other reasonable conclusion is that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 cannot be taken as saying that homosexuality is wrong or sinful, but only that homo-erotic acts between males was considered socially unacceptable behaviour in that it that offended Jewish religio-cultural sensibilities.

PAUL’S LETTERS – ROMANS, CORINTHIANS, TIMOTHY
To better understand these texts, we need to consider some facts about Paul, his time and his audience/s.

Formerly Saul, a Roman-raised Jewish official loyal to the overlords, zealously pursuing the task of hunting down the renegade followers of the recently crucified Jesus, Paul was forced to, literally, “see the light” one day on his way to Damascus during the course of his mission. Read the exciting story for yourself at Acts (of the Apostles) chapter 1: 1-31, NRSV. He thereafter applied himself with equal zeal – compounded by the extremism and absolutism of the recent convert – to his new role of ministering to the nascent and fragile Christian church, still expecting a dramatic Second Coming anytime soon, and therefore focused on ensuring that they were prepared for that, by being as “pure” as possible.

The concern was how to make peace between the revolutionary teachings of Jesus, which implied more personal power and responsibility on the part of the believer, and the Mosaic doctrines handed down by their forefathers, which derive from the notion of a paternalistic God personally intervening in and directing our affairs, who must be appeased and kept happy by a variety of ritual acts and practices.

In his ministry, therefore, Paul had to contend with these, as well as with whatever personal (internal) conflicts he may still have needed to reconcile. In that regard, most Paulian experts will agree that he had serious issues with sexuality, which he was wont to describe in terms of weakness of the flesh, or something in the nature of an unhealthy burning that has to be quenched. For these reasons and, as well, because his letters were almost always intended to address concerns raised by his wide-ranging audiences, made up of Jewish followers of “the Way” scattered throughout different nations and principalities, and a variety of Gentiles who had also embraced the message of the Christ, Paul necessarily always had an agenda, or maybe several agendas, when he wrote one of his despatches.

These concerns that he was addressing often involved clashes between the perspectives of these disparate groups; and, like any other great communicator, Paul always pitched his letters, in terms of language, style and emotional appeal, to the particular group that he was addressing.

This, then, is the context in which Paul’s letters, including those passages which seem to raise the issue of homosexuality, must be read.

Romans 1: 18-32 lists male-male sex and female sexual perversions among a wide range of consequences of what Paul perceived to be ungodly living. What was his agenda when he wrote this? Primarily, he wanted to settle a debate about what is clean or unclean in the new, Christian sense: some Jews were insisting on the old Mosaic principles of circumcision and other rituals, while others, in support of their Gentile brethren, were arguing that circumcision was not necessary in the new dispensation.

Paul wanted to make it clear that, while purity absolutely continued to be a requirement for the “Chosen People”, that purity should now be defined more in terms of the quality of one’s behaviour than in terms of any particular ritual or social rule. What is also emerging is that Jewishness is no longer the criterion for eligibility to be considered among the “Chosen”, but, rather, whether or not one is a sincere follower of the (new) Way.

He saw homosexuality as non-acceptable behavior - the test seems to be what is natural as against the unnatural. It’s important to note that the original Greek used by Paul does not translate into the abstract sense of (in accordance with or contrary to) the laws of nature, as in modern usage. Instead, the word/s used by Paul refer more to what is a thing’s character, or kind; in other words, the way in which a thing is understood, or known, or expected to manifest /behave. Helminiak lists a number of instances of this usage by Paul throughout his epistles, including a reference, at Romans 11:24 to God bringing Jews and Gentiles together. For Paul, “unnatural” meant “not in the expected manner”.

Since the prevailing view of Paul’s time – and indeed an enduring view of fundamental Christianity, even in modern times – is that the purpose of sex (and remember Paul’s issues with sex and sexuality generally) is procreation only, then any sexual activity that was not designed or intended for that purpose would be considered “unnatural”. Therefore, to have sex for the sheer pleasure of it was “unnatural”. This is why, even today, some Christian fundamentalists still frown on masturbation and birth control.

This is not to say that homosexual acts, and other sexual activities not likely to lead to procreation, were wrong in se. The words used in the original Greek do not carry any moral or ethical quality whatsoever. Of particular significance is the fact that this is the only passage in the Bible that could be interpreted as referring to lesbian acts. But the preceding discussion makes it clear that it could just as easily be referring to any non-procreative – read: not socially sanctioned – sexual activity, eg, anal intercourse, or sex during menstruation.

Apart from the passage in Romans, there are two other references that Paul makes to homosexuality in his letters. One is found at I Corinthians 6:9, and the other at 1 Timothy 1:10. The interpretation of these two passages turns on the translation of two Greek words used in them, namely, malakoi and arsenokoitai.

Corinthians 6:9-10:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes (malakoi), sodomites (arsenokoitai), thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers – none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 1:9-10:

...the law is laid down not for the innocent, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites (arsenokoitai), slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God...

Helminiak records no less than five other meanings ascribed to each of these words through different versions of the Bible, including “the effeminate” and “sissies” for malakoi, and “child molesters” and “perverts” for arsenokoitai. In fact, until somewhere between the 16th and 20th centuries, malakoi was generally taken as referring to “masturbators”, while a recent Catholic translation, the New American Bible, makes arsenokoitai “practising homosexuals”. This rendering is the most curious, not only because the notion of “practising” homosexual bespeaks a complex understanding of homosexuality that simply did not exist in Paul’s day, but also because it actually did not gain currency until the latter half of the 20th century.

So, obviously, these two words are open to a wide range of interpretations; and, for that reason alone, these passages provide no compelling reason for a negative judgement of homosexuals as a whole. When the words are studied more closely in their cultural and literal contexts, the most likely meanings that emerge likewise fail to support condemnation of homosexuality per se.

For one thing, arsenokotai refers only to male-male sex, and seems to be an echo of the “men lying with men” text of Leviticus. By Paul’s time, however, the concern was not so much about men having sex with men, as it was about those involved in a specific kind of homo-genital relationship, characterised by abuse and domination, and usually between an older / more powerful, and younger / (socially or physically) weaker man. The parallels between this particular social ill, and the issue that lay at the heart of the Sodom and Gomorrah story, are inescapable.

In contrast, malakoi may not even be a reference to homosexuality at all. Literally, the word means “soft” and, with reference to (sexual) behaviour, can best be translated as “loose”, “wanton”, or “degenerate”, all terms which could just as easily relate to heterosexual, as to homosexual, relations.

HETEROSEXUALITY DIVINELY ORDAINED?
There is still the argument that there is an underlying assumption of heterosexuality in the Bible, which suggests that homosexuality is not acceptable.

The short answer to this is that, of course there’s an assumption of heterosexuality in the Bible, and in most mainstream literature throughout the ages, because a significant majority of people on the earth are straight! And, if art is indeed society’s mirror, the bulk of it will reflect this bias. As people become more open and informed about, and accepting of, alternative sexualities and lifestyles, stories about, and images of, homosexual people in various media have become more commonplace.

Then there is the contention that hetero-normativity was actually ordained by God during the act of creation, and that, therefore, homosexuality is against God’s “natural law”. The first thing to note is that there are three creation stories in the Bible, each with a different focus, and told for a different purpose. Two are in Genesis and one is in the gospel of John. The first was an explanation of the creative process itself – from ideation through verbalisation to manifestation – which, interpreted literally, is primarily about the cycle of work followed by rest and acknowledgement of the Divine, or the establishment of the concept of the Sabbath, which is referenced later on when Moses gets and delivers the Ten Commandments. The second story is about the emergence of sin, or man’s separation from God. And the third is to set the historical context for the story of the advent of the One who was meant to save mankind from the consequences of sin – Jesus the Christ, the messiah.

There is nothing in any of the three stories to suggest any teaching about sexual orientation, whether expressly affirming of heterosexuality, or condemning of homosexuality. As with all Biblical stories, they simply made use of easily accessible and recognisable examples and images to illustrate the learning points. The heterosexual couple was such an image, which was also useful in the light of some of the secondary agendas of these stories, for example, explaining why women have pain in childbirth.

And, sure, there is the exhortation to “be fruitful and multiply”. But can this be taken as commanding that people should only be heterosexual? If anything, it seems more to be suggesting that having children and populating the earth is an imperative of the human race. Yet we very wisely use birth control methods to ensure the very opposite, and properly deplore the overpopulating of various parts of the earth. Are we not, in this regard, acting in direct contravention of “God’s Word”, of His “natural law”?

POSITIVE REFERENCES?
Now let’s explore the idea that, far from condemning homosexuality as such, the Bible is, at worst, neutral with regard to homosexual relations and might even, at best, affirm them.

Consider, for example, the story of David and Jonathan. David was one of the most divinely favoured of Biblical characters. As a lowly shepherd boy, he defeated the giant Goliath. He was author of the Book of Psalms, which bespeak a deeply loving and intimate relationship with his God.

As king, David was abundantly blessed – powerful in his reign, highly successful in battle, he seemed unable to put a foot wrong. Even before his ascendancy to the throne it is recorded that “David had success in all his undertakings; for the Lord was with him” (1 Samuel 18:14). The ultimate divine endorsement, of course, is that Jesus, the Son of God Himself, would eventually be born of David’s line: Isaiah 9:7, Luke 1:32 and 3:23-38.

Jonathan was the son and heir apparent of the then King, Saul, from whom David eventually won the throne. Their relationship is very closely chronicled in the books of Samuel. At 1 Samuel 18:1-4 we are told that:

...the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. .... then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword, and his bow and his belt.

1 Samuel 20 describes how, later on. Jonathan conspired with David to keep the latter safe from Saul. Before doing so, however, “Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him: for he loved him as he loved his own life” (1 Samuel 20:17).

When he found out, “Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, ‘You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?....” (I Samuel 20:30) The words “shame” and “nakedness” are common ways of referring to sex in the Bible, and it seems clear that Saul was disparaging the sexual nature of the relationship between the two youths, and was enraged that it was such as would make his own son turn against him.

Could not the story of David and Jonathan be interpreted as one of the greatest love stories of all time? And is it not also apparent, from the divine favour that was shown to David, that their love could not have been an “abomination” in the sight of their God?

The Book of Ruth recounts a similar level of commitment on the part of a Moabite woman, Ruth, towards her Jewish mother-in-law, Naomi, following the death of her husband, Naomi’s son. According to the custom of the day, the widowed woman should have returned to her own people, in the absence of another son to take her as his wife, but Ruth refused. Chapter 1 reports that Ruth “clung” to Naomi, and begged, at verses 16-17:

Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die – there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if [anything but] death parts me from you.

This passage describes such devotion and commitment that it is now common stock in modern marriage ceremonies, with most users not knowing where it’s from!

There is another passage that could be interpreted as at least acknowledging, without judgement, the existence of homosexuals. In the gospel of Matthew, chapter 19, Jesus teaches important lessons about marriage and divorce, then quite gratuitously remarks, at verses 11-12:

Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.

There is speculation that a eunuch, as the word is used in the bible, could equally have been a castrated man, as a homosexual man. And it could very well be that the latter sense was the one intended by Jesus in this passage.

CONCLUSION

Whatever might be one’s take on these stories and references, there is one fact that is unavoidable – the Bible clearly does not have the same pre-occupation with homosexuality that modern Christianity does. There are a mere five scriptures that seem to raise the issue, and they are inconclusive as to the moral or ethical nature of homosexuality as such. In contrast, there are more than a hundred passages making it clear that the imperatives of righteous living include a spirit of love, compassion and non-judgement towards our fellow man, and an attitude of reverence and devotion towards God.

It would seem to me that, if the energy and attention of those who condemn homosexuality in God’s name were focused instead in this direction, there would be precious little left over for homophobia and gay-bashing, and this world could very well become a better place for all of us – straight and gay – to live in.