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

[jocon307]

"They choose a handful of quotes out of a book that takes a year to read if you pace yourself conservatively."

Yes, I've just decided to finally read the Bible, I'm a fast reader, so far I've just been reading it before bed (not ideal, admitedly) and I'm on page 2! I'm very much thinking I'll have to read it during a more awake time, as, even from the very start, it really makes one think.

"This is similar to the "Bible contradicts itself" crap."

Yes, the big subject for this one is slavery, I venture. I was listening to the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC (NPR) a few weeks ago, I think the subject MIGHT have been slave "reparations", whatever it was the subject of how the Bible talks about slavery came up. The guest that day was very lefty, but this excellent caller called in and said, if you look at it with allowances to the existing cultures, the Bible is pretty clear that slavery is a negative thing. Well, he was very eloquent on it, and I'm doing him a disservice with my paraphrasing here, but he really kind of shut the guest up, and that was really because he was so obviously a Bible believer, and he very much seemed to be (altho' on the phone, you can never be sure) an African-American. They didn't have the nerve to ask him, it was really pretty amusing to me. He had really studied his Bible, that always impresses me.

[milan]

Here is a link for a Bible in a year program...many translations:

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/BibleInAYear/

You are right though; best to do it in the day when you are awake. I usually read Bible in the morning (before work) and try to do extra studies in the evening hours. To finish in a year, you will have to read between 15-30 minutes a day with no study. Add study and you can increase that to 1-3 hours easily.

There are many blatant misinterpretations of the Bible. Best thing to do is ignore those misinterpreting. If God wants to soften their heart, he will.

[jocon307]

That's a great site, thanks for sending me the link. It really has a bunch of translations, even Latin! I'm very impressed, and it also makes me feel welcome as a Roman Catholic, even though I've decided to read The King James Version. I'm actually reading hubby's confirmation Bible, I must have at least 3 others, but that was the one I found first.

"If God wants to soften their heart, he will."

This reminds me of that silly Irish saying I've seen in catologues, who knows if it's real or not? Something along the lines of:

Let those who love us, love us
And those who don't
Let God turn their hearts
And if He doesn't turn their hearts
Let Him turn their ankles so we'll know them by their limping.

[SuziQ]

the Greeks considered it different than marriage, and except for the elite, frowned on it

Apparently it was practice by the academic elites who were attracted to their young students. Since girls didn't attend school, the academic elites tended to lionize the young, educated men.

[longtermmemmory]

one of the reasons that Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is having such a tricky job keeping everyone on board.

*** **** ******

What a load of equivalency manure. This is just trying to set up an agree to disagree scenario. Sorry no sale.

Keeping everyon on board? Does this mean that the homosexuals are going to bandon the church AND the properties? don't think so...

Garbage anylysis to support an immoral position.

[longtermmemmory]

note also the article uses "gay" not the correct and accurate homosexual.

using "gay" demonstrates the authors preference.

[aruanan]

Intercourse can also mean to "join in conversation".

Yes, it can. Except that in the passage written by Paul above, it doesn't.

[AppyPappy]

Intercourse wasn't even mentioned. Paul rarely spoke that boldly about sexual issues. He literally said "Women exhanged natural uses for unnatural ones".

[BamaDave]

By not speaking out against these perverts and their sick agenda for Americans and their children you are a sycophant.

Gimme a break!

If people like you would drop their obsession with gays, the gays would probably stop being so "in your face" with their agenda. Stop trying to restrict their freedom to conduct their personal lives as they see fit. I just don't understand why you care so much about what other people do in their private lives.

[AppyPappy]

We wouldn't care if they didn't practice it in public so much. They can't have a parade without turning it into a pervert party and they infest our public parks and restrooms. Not to mention they want to destroy marriage as an institution and their promiscuity costs us hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars.

[aruanan]

It lays out the two sides of the argument and doesn't champion either. I am not familiar with the Bible "chapter & verse" and have oftened wondered where the homsexual activists found support.

Well, the second sentence explains the sentiment of the first. Just by laying things out as pro and con and in the end talking about how hard and tricky it is to decide when different people interpret the same thing in two different ways, the author has already accorded the pro-homosexual side a great deal of legitimacy in this matter that it has never had. Such a structuring of the "argument" is due either to ignorance or deviousness. Neither is a good thing.

But you're correct in stating that the pro-homosexual position has very flimsy support when trying to use scripture. On the one hand, it has to beg the question to make what it calls pro-homosexual verses support its position and, on the other, it has to explain away clear, unambiguous language that undercuts it or engage in fallacies such as the shrimp equivalency ploy alluded to above ("G-d abominates the eating of shrimp. G-d abominates homosexual behavior. Eating shrimp is no big deal. Therefore, homosexuality is no big deal either. Either that, or G-d's a real dork for making the eating of shrimp a bad thing.")

[Lazamataz]

He said the same about eating shrimp.

So don't eat shrimp and don't be gay.

[Friend of thunder]

Intercourse can also mean to "join in conversation".

It can, but the NIV translate it as “have sex with them”.

[AppyPappy]

Most pro-homosexual activists don't seem Biblically-literate enough to know that the cleanliness laws were thrown out in the New Testament.

[Lazamataz]

I know when I eat shrimp and drink beer I do some strange things.

Gay things?

[Lazamataz]

And the penalty, in the Bible, for eating shrimp is??

The elders of the tribe make you turn gay.

[Held_to_Ransom]

He said the same about eating shrimp

Eating shrimp in the desert before refrigeration was a very poor idea. A good way to get sick. Perhaps there's a clue there in terms of HIV and all those other STD's.

[Lazamataz]

Does anyone else have problems imagining God....puking?

That's how the universe was formed, y'know.

You don't wanna know how he created gassy giant planets.

[Held_to_Ransom]

It also says, by the way, that deviating from the plan is abominable-but in this context, it's not the characterization of the deviation that is important, but the fact that is not part of the Creator's design.

As Darwin noted, natural selection is redundant to the notion of God being alive and well in the world. What most folks get wrong is that natural selection does not, per se, control the way man lives, though it is not entirely irrelevant. Man lives more often by unconscious selection or methodological selection. In the case of gays, the process of society relaxing it's restrictions against it is, obviously, a method by which the body of society diminishes in itself periodically of the gay influence. While the standard for most of the Roman Empire did eschew gay relationships, the upper crust did indulge, but with time, such behaviour is an end to itself. God is alive and well and active in the world, and yes, gays, while part of the plan, are not the essential part of the plan. The correct parallel is the tares and the wheat. Tares have a useful function, but they are not the bread of life as is the wheat. Sometimes they are left in the field for a time, but ultimately they are all separated from the wheat.

[aruanan]

Intercourse wasn't even mentioned. Paul rarely spoke that boldly about sexual issues. He literally said "Women exhanged natural uses for unnatural ones".

Don't go all Janet Reno on us by looking at a couple words in isolation. I was referring to "intercourse" in the translation in the text above. The use of the word in that translation, though, is consistent with the text as seen in the NIV translation below and "uses" is, indeed, referring to sexual relations, sexual intercourse, boinking, screwing, the horizontal mambo, the beast with two backs, getting down and dirty, going down, riding the skinboat to tuna town, whatever the phrase used to denote the activities included in this class of acts (see v. 24 which gives the context for the specifics of verse 26 and 27--note the "therefore" and "because of this").

And "rarely" is irrelevant. The operative words are "clearly" and "appropriately". When something is stated clearly and in the right context, it need not be stated more often than that. The few places Paul speaks specifically to sexual sin, it's evident that the context warrants it (his overview of G-d's relationship to the world or sexual immorality in the Corinthian church, to mention two instances).

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.