The Bible and Homosexual Behavior

In many Christian traditions, homosexual love has been declared immoral based upon "biblical teaching."  To this day, most American Christians consider homosexuality to be immoral and believe that homosexual relationships between consenting adults should remain illegal.¹⁵  The basis for these Christian beliefs is derived from scriptural texts.  However, it should be noted that because the words "homosexual" or "homosexuality" were coined in the nineteenth century, they do not appear in the Bible (the words are absent from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts).  Jesus did not address the topic in the New Testament.

It is not a simple matter to briefly summarize the body of research on homosexuality in the Bible.  But, a short review is important to demonstrate the possibility of a biblical view towards homosexuality different from the one many Christians uncritically assume.  Every gay/lesbian Adventist church member eventually learns all of the texts that will be repeatedly used against them as homosexuals.  From personal experience, I know these texts, and their rhetoric from Adventist pulpits has often been cruel, insensitive, and life-threatening.  Yet, so much of this doctrinal condemnation stems from limited human understandings rather than divine edict. 

Some scriptural passages that have been used against homosexuals do not address homosexuality as the primary issue.  For instance, the story of Sodom in Genesis 19 is about the offense against the sacred duty of hospitality portrayed by homosexual rape.  Ezekiel 16:46-49 and Judges 19-21 interprets Genesis 19 similarly.¹⁶  In this illustration, ostensibly heterosexual males are intent on humiliating strangers and "demasculinizing" them.  The violence of the attempted male rape heightens the atrocity of the offense.  The logic that uses the brutality of male rape to characterize committed long-term gay/lesbian relationships in the twenty-first century is flawed--and offensive to many Christians.

Other texts that have been used to justify the Christian position against homosexuals are rather ambiguous.  First Corinthians 6:9-10 and First Timothy 1:8-10 list arsenokoitai (and malakois) among those who will be denied salvation under the reign of God.  This obscure term has been translated as "homosexual."  However, the exact meaning is unclear and debatable.  It certainly does not include lesbian women and probably only relates to a certain type of male sexual offender (or prostitute).  This word must be interpreted in light of the abuse and promiscuity associated with male-male sex in the Roman Empire--which is not representative of the twenty-first century gay/lesbian community in the United States.^17-19  In short, it is unclear whether the scriptural issue revolves around homosexuality, prostitution, or promiscuity.

Furthermore, some Adventists will argue that God did not create same-sex partnerships in the originally conceived Eden as another point against homosexuality.  Genesis 1-3 show Adam and Eve created for companionship and procreation.  These accounts use the most standard human relationship to teach a religious lesson.  The crux of the example regards the love and wisdom of God, who made all good things and wills no evil upon human beings.  Nothing suggests that biblical authors intended the story of creation to be a lesson on sexual orientation.²⁰ 

Questioning these texts due to irrelevance or ambiguity regarding homosexuality, there remain three scriptural references that remain at the heart of Adventist positions against it.  However, it should be duly noted that these texts are often cited out of context to the times or the primary lessons being conveyed.  Furthermore, these texts do not describe a dynamic of voluntary consensual loving adult relationships between members of the same gender.

Two Old Testament references appear to condemn homosexual behavior.  Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 state that certain male-male sexual behavior is an "abomination."  Such acts were considered "abominations" in Old Testament times for several reasons.  The pre-scientific understanding was that male semen contained all of the biological essentials for nascent life.  With no knowledge of the female ovum and ovulation, it was assumed that women only provided incubating space.  Therefore, the "spilling" of semen for any non-procreative purpose was considered sinful--whether it be coitus interruptus, male homosexual acts or male masturbation.   One can imagine how a tribe struggling to populate an area in which it was a minority would value procreative potential.  In addition, within the patriarchalism of Old Testament Jewish culture, heterosexual male dignity was considered compromised when a man assumed female roles (including sexual activities).  Furthermore, because certain ritualized homosexual practices (not a loving adult consensual same-sex relationship) were associated with idolatrous practices (idolatry considered the “abomination”), it was considered "un-Jewish."  For some Christian "literalists," these verses are viewed to prescribe execution for all persons committing homosexual acts.  Particularly when isolated out of context, Old Testament scriptures can be cruelly misrepresented.  Though extreme, some Christian groups continue to advocate death/destruction of all homosexuals.^21-23

The third text used to condemn homosexuals is Romans 1:26-27 where Paul describes homosexual behavior as "unnatural" (although these activities are more accurately translated as "atypical" or "unconventional" rather than "unnatural" or "abnormal"--Paul describes God using the very same words para physin in Romans 11:24).¹⁶  Paul was not aware of the distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, and he also assumed that everyone was naturally and compellingly heterosexual.   Paul did not understand that homosexual orientation is "natural" for a minority of human beings.  The scientific concept of a "homosexual orientation" was simply not available to Paul's world (that science to be reviewed later in this paper).²¹  Paul assumed that all of those he condemned were heterosexual--and as such, these heterosexuals were acting contrary to sexual nature as he knew it.¹⁷  Most importantly, the activities that Paul describes are about lustful, lewd, and degrading homosexual behaviors (associated with idolatry and power) rather than sexual affections expressed within the context of long-term committed homosexual relationships in the twenty-first century.

However, even if the Bible may be interpreted to take particular stands on certain types of human relationships, this does not solve the problem of how present-day Christians should interpret or understand scriptures with respect to their current relationship conduct.  There are many sexual attitudes, practices, and restrictions which are normative in scripture, but which Christians no longer accept as normative.  For instance, most Christians do not accept polygamy, levirate marriage (the widow of a childless couple having intercourse with each brother of her deceased husband until a male heir is produced), women as "owned property," endogamy (marriage within the Jewish faith), compulsory celibacy, or slavery.

It is clear that Christians regard certain rules, particularly in the Old Testament, as no longer binding or relevant.  Understanding the principles employed in the selection process is crucial.  For example, most modern Christian readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting incest, rape, adultery, and bestiality.  But, we disagree with the Bible on a number of other sexual mores.  Despite biblical condemnation, Christians generally allow voluntary celibacy, exogamy, sex during menstruation, masturbation (with some restrictions), birth control, and private nudity (with some restrictions).  In addition, the Bible permitted behaviors that Christians usually shun such as polygamy, levirate marriage, concubinage, slavery and the treatment of women as property.  Clearly, twenty-first century Christians have made choices regarding a normative Christian sexual ethic, but these decisions have not been made solely, simply or explicitly on scriptural grounds.

Obviously, many of these societal (human) choices call into question formerly accepted biblical interpretations.^21,24  For instance, Mormon polygamy was outlawed in the United States despite constitutional protections of religious practice because the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture were violated.  Despite clear scriptural support and no explicit biblical prohibition of polygamy, few Christians currently support the notion of polygamous relationships.  As another example, the general tenor of the Bible can be used to support slavery.  American abolitionists were extremely hard pressed to justify their opposition to slavery on scriptural grounds, but few twenty-first century Christians believe that slavery is biblically sanctioned.  Furthermore, Christian women alienated by traditional biblical interpretations remind us that the love of the Savior is misrepresented by the cultural sexism and patriarchalism which relegates women to a status inferior to men.

While the strict literal arguments of scripture must be considered, an even deeper value is recognized in the loving spirit of the Bible and the Savior.  The Bible does not contain a particular sexual behavior ethic, rather, it illustrates a changing variety of sexual norms over the thousand-year span of biblical history.  What the Bible does share at a deeper level is the "love ethic" of the Savior (particularly espoused in New Testament  covenants) as it is brought to bear on the dominant sexual norms of any country, culture or era.  Our moral task is to apply the "love ethic" of the Savior to our current sexual norms.  This does not mean that "anything goes"--rather, it means that Christians review human relationships in light of principles revealed by the Savior's love.  This "love ethic" is not complex:  it does not exploit or dominate, and it is responsible, mutual, caring and nurturing.²¹  Christianity should challenge both homosexuals and heterosexuals to question their relationship activities in the light of love and the requirements of fidelity, honesty, accountability, responsibility, integrity, and genuine concern for the best interests of the other and the whole of society.  It is, in fact, the challenge to live as committed Christians on a higher moral plane.

Three biblical texts may be considered pertinent to the address of certain homosexual behaviors.  However, these passages must be considered very thoughtfully.  The fact that these texts are construed to condemn present-day homosexual orientation and committed long-term same-gender relationships as immoral, when such concepts were not available to biblical authors, suggests the need for a more detailed review.  Furthermore, the biblical discussion of Jonathan and David, Philip and the Eunuch, and Ruth and Naomi should also be brought to thoughtful reflection.

Had one Adventist pastor/teacher/physician/therapist/friend mentioned the possibility that God could still love me as a gay person, the difference in my life would have been profound (particularly as a young adult).  Instead, routine Adventist condemnation of homosexuals and homosexuality led me to flee all Christian association and the church of my "cradle roll."  This was a dangerous exile.  I missed the love, counsel and maturity of a Christian community (including family and friends).  This absence could have well led to my demise--it does for many.  

17.  Daniel Helminiak.  Catholicism, Homosexuality and Dignity, pamphlet for Dignity USA, 1995.

18.  Howard H Bess.  Pastor, I Am Gay.  Parker, Alaska:  Parker Publishing Company, 1995, 81-86.

19.  Letha Scanzoni, Virginia Mollenkott.  Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?  New York:  HarperCollins, 1994, 56-83.

20.  Daniel Helminiak.  What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality.  San Francisco:  Alamo Square Press, 1995, 101.

21.  Walter Wink.  "Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality" in The Christian Century, 7 November 1979, 1082-1086.

22.  Fred Phelps, pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.  Church position statement available on the Internet address:  http://www.godhatesfags.com, reviewed 8 December 1997.

23.  "Godhatesfags.com" in the Advocate, 25 November 1997, 18.

24.  Peter J Gomes.  The Good Book.  New York:  William Morrow and Company, 1996, 69-172.