I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again, but one of my greatest heroes in life is the 20th century suffragist, Alice Paul. She was willing to be jailed, go on a hunger strike, and be force fed, all in the name of taking the first of many steps on the road to female equality: the ballot. And I often think that I would be willing to go those same length to fight for my convictions.
But here's the thing: it's not the United States government that I worry about disagreeing with my beliefs. I don't worry that, by standing up for myself and my convictions, the government will choose to find an excuse to lock me in a cell and throw away the key.
But there is another institution that I worry about rejecting me and people that I know will not accept the things that I have to say. That institution is the Christian church and those people are many of my closest family and friends. But I can't let that stop me. I just can't anymore.
Throughout my years in high school and college, I remember pastors and youth leaders calling for "revolution." But they were never very clear about what that revolution was supposed to mean or do. Yeah, they made vague references to influencing the world towards "Christian" ways or somehow re-shaping our culture, but there was no specific call to action. I think part of that was because they simply had no clue what a revolution truly is.See, the Christian church has gone through revolutions before, although it is more commonly called a "reformation." Yes, I am talking about the "Great Reformation," sparked by that quintessential moment when Martin Luther nailed his 95-Theses to the door of the Catholic church in Wittenburg, Germany. And while, for years, I've known about this unilateral act by Martin Luther, I don't think I ever really considered what that must have meant for him. Specifically, I never contemplated how very much courage it must have taken not only Martin Luther, but every single one of his followers to actually be willing to turn away from the Catholic church, risking (according to the Catholic church) their very souls.
Going against the established church back in the 15th century was, or course, far more courageous than any push against the established church today because, for Martin Luther and his contemporaries, there was only one church. Today, the organized church is not one whole unit; it is splintered into dozens or even hundreds of different denominations, some with only minute disagreements among themselves, others with near catastrophic differences. So I'm not claiming to even come close to comprehending the amount of courage that it took for Martin Luther to nail that document to that church door. I just don't know. But I do know something about fearing rejection by the established church, even with a definition of such a thing as the "established" church being murky at best.
But nonetheless, I do believe that the church today, however it may be defined, does desperately need revolution. And although it is a different scale, it does still take courage to stand up and call for it. And it is a lack of courage that has kept me from speaking out and calling for change for a long time now. But it has kept me from even coming to my own personal conclusions, despite my own convictions, for even longer.
One of the things that Martin Luther fought for was the ability of everyday man to have access to the very pages of Scripture that the Catholic church was abusing. Since that day, people, through reading the Bible themselves, have had the power to figure out for themselves what to believe about specific passages and the ways that those passages should impact their lives.
Over the last several decades, though, something else has changed: the church has decided that, on a vast many topics, only one interpretation is considered valid. Now, people are supposed to just accept the English interpretations of some, at times, very obscure texts written hundreds of years ago in ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. These interpretations can range from only slightly subjective to extremely biased. And yet we, as Christians, are simply supposed to blindly subject our belief systems and actions to the choices that these translators have made. And for a lot of issues, that wouldn't bother me. But there is one issue, in particular, that I can't just blindly accept anymore. In fact, I haven't been able to blindly accept it for a long time.
The issue I'm talking about is one that is, in so many Christian circles, seen as the "worst of the worst." It's used to hate and bash and blame and yell and diminish and hurt. Oh, so much hurt.
Some of you may already have figured it out, but just to be explicitly clear: the issue that I'm talking about is homosexuality. And, to be clear, when I say in the title that I'm making an "apology" for homosexuality, I'm not saying that I'm somehow trying to make amends. Quite the opposite, in fact. I'm using the term "apology" in the context of a theologically based argument.
So I've studied the issue, looked at the original Greek or Hebrew words, examined context and culture, all to try and make the most informed decision I can about what an accurate interpretation of these passages should be. Now, I don't claim to have any training in original language interpretation. So all I can do is read as much as I can and then go with my convictions (and that, by the way, is all that I can ask of anyone else).
There is, and probably always will be, more to say on this topic, so I'm not going to even attempt to make a comprehensive apology for homosexuality not being against the Word of God. Also, for anyone reading this who doesn't believe that the Bible is God's Word or should be used as applicable to our lives: you are not the people that I'm writing this to. Because, for you, it just doesn't matter. But for me and for my family and many of my friends and my church, this issue is crucial. And, far more importantly, it is crucial to anyone who is not a heterosexual, no matter what label they carry, who has been hurt or rejected or shamed by the church. So, because I started by talking about Martin Luther, I too am going to break down what I have to say into a number of different points. Although I don't have 95. I don't think I'd ever finish...
- First and arguably most importantly, we need to be constantly aware about the context in which we are speaking, specifically about the impact that what we have to say has on people's lives. No one lives in a vacuum, so simply making a proclamation such as "homosexuality is wrong" or any variation similar to that touches people's lives. It is a statement about someone's very identity. Even if you hold the belief that people can "choose" whether or not to be gay, you still need to be aware that the majority, if not all non-heterosexual people feel that their sexual orientation is a part of who they are as a person. So making the aforementioned proclamation attacks a person's very identity. It can lead others to a lack of understanding, fear, and hatred. These things, in turn, can and do lead to violence. We need to be aware of this context before going any further.
- We need to be open to learning new truths from the Bible, even if that means changing long-, strongly-, and traditionally-held beliefs. The apostle Paul had to be struck blind by God to turn from traditional Judaism and the apostle Peter saw a sheet lowered from Heaven in a dream in order to change his beliefs about Biblical teachings. Martin Luther sparked the Protestant Reformation. Churches across this country for years believed and taught that slavery was Scripture-sanctioned, interracial marriage was wrong, and women should hold no leadership roles. Yes, we believe that the Bible and God are both infallible, but that says nothing of you or me. We, as humans, are far from infallible. We are prone to errors, mistranslations, and misinterpretations. And it's prideful to think otherwise.
- Now, I think another important thing to be aware of when digging into this issue on a Biblical level is realizing that every book, chapter, and verse of the Bible fits together to tell a single story, all revolving around God's radical love for mankind manifested most fully and most poignantly in the personhood of Jesus Christ. So, when examining a specific and, at times, seemingly obscure passage that seems to address homosexuality, it is primarily important to put that passage into context. It's important to ask how this passage furthers God's message of love and salvation. So, when looking at specific passages for an answer to questions about sexuality or sex, it's crucial to remember that the Bible is not a book written about sex or orientation or identity. It's a book about God and by God about who He is and His love for us.
- Furthermore, there was no definitive word in the Biblical languages that is equivalent to a modern understanding of monogamous, committed homosexual relationships. There just wasn't. I'll get into what the words sometimes translated as "homosexual" are talking about in a bit, but for now it's important to be aware of this simple fact.
- Now, moving on to those specific passages used by people to try to condemn homosexuality. First, and most notably, there is the infamous story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:16-19:14). This story is the origin of the degrading term "sodomy" and its derivatives. We likely all know the tale: two angels who came in the form of men, go to Sodom to retrieve Abraham's nephew, Lot, in advance of the city's predicted destruction. Now this is an important point: the city was already doomed even before the angels entered the city. Now, the saga that occurs once those angels enter the city have nothing to do with homosexual relations as we know them today. It is a story of a complete lack of hospitality and, yes, of savagery. But that savagery is in relation to an attempted gang rape. Yes, the intended perpetrators were men and, yes, their intended victims were men. But rape has NOTHING to do with sex, and EVERYTHING to do with exerting power and control. We don't have any clue what the sexual orientation of those offenders was! But you don't have to take my word for it. The prophet Ezekiel makes clear that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah that doomed them to destruction was that they were rich and prosperous but did not care for the poor and needy among them (Ezekiel 16:48-49 - "This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes."). Likewise, in Matthew 10 and Luke 10, Jesus refers to the sin of Sodom as the sin of inhospitality. So the point that God is making in this story is heard clearly in Micah: "do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8).
- The second most oft quoted passage used to condemn homosexuality is Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. These are the verses that declare that, if a man lies with another man, it is an abomination and they should be executed. But let's put these verses into context: just around these verses are "condemnations" of a man sleeping with a women while she is on her period. It declares that this is an abomination and that both the man and the woman should be executed! Leviticus also seemingly condemns tattoos (oops!!), wearing clothing of mixed fabrics (no cotton/poly blends for you!), eating pork or even playing with its skin (so, sorry Ravens, no Superbowl title for you. It's an abomination!) My point being, the Levitical code needs to be taken with a grain of salt and understood in context. It's a book written by Moses primarily to the Levitical priesthood about how the priests should conduct their lives. Some of it is addressed to the Hebrew nation as a whole, but the entire point of it was to call Israel to a higher, nay an impossibly high standard so that Israel would be a nation set-apart, completely distinct from every surrounding culture. Furthermore, the word "abomination" that is used throughout this Holiness code has a very different meaning from the way it is commonly understood. The Hebrew word was "TO'EBAH" and it is in reference to behaviours that people in a particular place and time find tasteless and offensive. Ergo, which acts are "TO'EBAH" will change depending upon your circumstances. When Paul declared that it is ok for Christians to eat pork, he was talking about the requirements listed in this Levitical holiness code, and he said that it does not pertain to Christians! Likewise, the Levitacal holiness code said not to work on the Sabbath, yet Jesus openly declared that to be not applicable. So why, according to this Levitical code, was it "TO'EBAH" for a man to sleep with another man? It's the same reason why Genesis 38:9-10 condemns a man "spilling his seed on the ground" (this has been used to condemn masturbation or even "pulling out" as an act of birth control). It was because they believed that man's seed contained the entire essence of life (and woman was just the incubator for that seed) and the Israelites were trying to expand their nation in order to fulfill God's command and promise that they reproduce and fill the earth. So, in today's context, there are and probably should be a certain standard of sexual conduct expected for Christ followers, but it doesn't find its root in the Levitical code. Furthermore, we now understand the biological process of reproduction exponentially better than the Israelites ever did, and most Christians agree that we are no longer under the strict command to "fill the earth" (i.e. reproduce endlessly without birth control).
- Next, I want to talk about two passages together: the creation story in Genesis 1-2 and the passage in Romans 1 used to condemn both gay and lesbian relations. So in the Genesis story, you see God displaying awesome power in his creation of the entire world, from the sky above to the earth below, to the plants and the animals, and finally, to man and woman. Throughout the entire creation process, God keeps stopping and declaring an end to every day of work with "It is good." When he creates man, he declares him "very good." But then something happens: God declares something "not good." He says, "it is not good for man to be alone." And so he creates a woman, Eve, to be his suitable companion. And again he declares it "very good." Now here is where most critics of homosexuality from a Biblical perspective come in with snarky signs that say "God created Adam and EVE" not "Adam and STEVE." And it's true. For Adam, his suitable companion was Eve. But does that inherently mean that EVERY man's suitable companion is a woman? And vice versa? Well, first, from a practical perspective, if God had made two men, there could have been no children, no "reproduce and fill the earth." And equally if He had created two women. So, for Adam, with his duty to reproduce, the only suitable companion for him was a woman. But let's go back to that first premise: "It is not good for man to be alone." Now, the traditional interpretation and application of Christian doctrine on homosexuality is that, for a homosexual, he/she must necessarily remain alone, for although their suitable partner would be someone of the same gender, and, if that is morally wrong, he/she, as a Christian must refrain from acting on it. Forever. So, I have to ask: how can it be "good" for a gay person to forever remain alone? Doesn't that fly in the face of that first declaration of "not good" in reference to man's isolation? Now, Paul's teaches in Romans 1:26-27 that a man exchanging "natural" relations with a woman for "unnatural" relations with a man (and likewise, women exchanging "natural" relations with men for "unnatural" relations with each other). The passage is clear that it is talking about someone abandoning his/her former state (i.e. heterosexuality) for one that is unnatural for him/her. The verses preceding this passage are talking about people who previously knew God but abandoned Him to pursue worldy idols. So, in this light, for a straight man, any straight man, of course it is inherently "unnatural" for him to have sex with another man. But what about for a gay man? Wouldn't it be just as "unnatural" for him to stop sleeping with his male partner and start sleeping with a woman? For the passage is clear that the people in question were, in fact, already having relations with people of the opposite gender. So it is arguably safe to say that these people were, according to today's terminology, straight. Furthermore, let's look at the context surrounding this passage: Paul had just returned from Rome where he witnessed the odd sexual practices of priests and priestesses in the pagan temples. These practices ranged from drunken orgies to sleeping with young temple prostitutes (more on this in a minute) to castrating themselves. So he we exhorting the recipients of his letter to not be overtaken by a sexual obsession and sink into sexual depravity. So God gave them over to the natural consequences of their obsessions. To me, this says nothing of a lesbian woman and her life-long partner/wife (depending on the laws in their state) engaging in a healthy level of commitment, love and devotion in pursuit of honouring God comparable to a "traditional," Godly, heterosexual union. Furthermore, the one other time that Paul uses this term "nature" is in 1 Corinthians 11 wherein Paul describes it as "unnatural" for a woman to pray with her head uncovered and for a man to have long hair. The contexts and words used in these two passages are remarkably similar, but the way in which they are traditionally understood is markedly different. So the terms "natural" and "unnatural," it would seem, refer to customs of the time. It does not refer to biology or sexual orientation, but to customs and idolatry and unbridled passions.
- Finally, and on this I want to be perfectly clear and very blunt: the word "homosexual" never appeared in the Bible until the late 1940s at the earliest. It is now used to translate the Greek word "arsenokoitai." This word first appears in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and again in 1 Timothy 1:10 and its translation is murky, at best. Also appearing in these verses is another troublesome Greek word, "malokois," often translated as either "effeminate call boys" or as "male prostitutes." The primary interpretation of the second word, "malokois" refers to young boys who were shaved clean and traded at the temple for money. Others say that the literal interpretation of "malokois" is "soft" and refers to people who are lazy or cowardly. Whichever may be more accurate is unclear, as this is a vague term often used in lists of general vices. And, although the word "arsenokoitai" is hardly ever found in any of Paul's contemporary Greek literature, we can be pretty sure, from the context in which it is written, that the term refers to those people whom today's society would label "dirty old men" or, to put it more bluntly, the pedophiles who pay for sex with the "malokois." Every other use of the term following Paul's (which is the first known use of the word) refers to some form of sexual and economic exploitation. So this word, as best we can tell, has nothing whatsoever to do with a loving, faithful same-sex relationship. Therefore, it would seem that Paul's condemnation of "arsenokoitai" and "malokois" is a condemnation of exploitative, sexual relationships, especially pedophilia.
- And my final and most crucial point comes from Matthew 19:4-5, 11-12. These long-forgotten passages specifically affirm homosexuals who are "born that way" (yes, apparently, Jesus knew of Gaga even before Gaga existed). In the first portion of the passage, it is Jesus' explanation of the reasons behind marriage. He says "Have you not read that the One who made them at the beginning made them male and female... For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh? Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate." Jesus then allows for three exceptions to this rule, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." So, what on earth is this talk of "eunuchs?" Well, eunuchs were highly ranked but socially "deviant" men who were supposed to protect and serve the female royalty without feeling sexual or romantic attraction for them. So, in layman's terms, the last one seems pretty simply: those who choose celibacy to serve God (Paul would probably fall into this category); those who are castrated (or otherwise made impotent at the hands of man); and those who innately do not feel sexual attraction to women. Now, this last category could, in theory, apply to that EXTREMELY small group of people who are born without "parts," for lack of a better term. But, because this is so incredibly rare (and it's unlikely that society even recognized this group of people during Jesus' time), it is far more likely that, here, Jesus is referring to men who are not attracted to women because they are, in fact, attracted to men. As I already emphasized, there was no language in Jesus' time to describe homosexual orientation as we know it today, so it seems to me that Jesus expressed his affirmation of homosexual orientation in the only language that he knew how: through a seemingly obscure reference to "eunuchs" who are "born that way." Furthermore, when this reference to "born eunuchs" is used in other writings around that time, it is associated with men who are sexually attracted to each other. And Jesus stated that those with that orientation "should accept it." This, to me reads that homosexuals should embrace their orientation as natural and live their lives accordingly. Furthermore, when Phillip comes across an Ethiopian eunuch on his travels, although we do not know for sure if he was a born eunuch, it seems like a fair assumption, especially in light of his reading material (Isaiah 53's passage regarding suffering and rejection) that he was, in fact, gay, Philip does not condemn or tell him that he cannot be baptized. Instead, he says if you believe with all your heart, you may." (See Acts 8:26-40).
I know that not everyone who reads this will "accept it." But I ask you to at least try and understand. Try to look past yourself, your own lack of understanding about same-sex attraction, your own traditions. I may not be able to change anyone's minds. But this is no longer just me spewing a political belief. It is an apology, a call to action, a call for reformation. I believe that revolution is coming, particularly on this issue. It will change the church forever, and so I ask you, do you have the courage, like Martin Luther and his followers, to answer that call? I know it's scary, and you may have to risk everything, but you are called to scrutinize teachings in light of the Bible. And, once you have sought and found the truth, you are called to action. And you are called to reformation.
One final word, and with this I actually am making an apology in the traditional sense of the word. To anyone and everyone who has been hurt by the church's traditional views on sexual orientation: please know that I am so sorry and heartbroken that we, the church, have hurt and attacked and shamed you. That is not who Jesus is. That is not who I am. I am sorry for every last tear, every fear, every feeling of shame and rejection. You are not alone. You are loved,. You are loved for exactly who you are. And who you are and who you love, God has declared it "very good."
Sources:
http://www.soulforce.org/
http://matthewvines.tumblr.com/
www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/
"For The Bible Tells Me So"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/
