The Bible says…
Homophobia isn’t in the Bible says Jason Davies-Kildea
S
ome thoughts on using the Bible to maintain prejudice…
I love the Bible. I know how that sounds, but it’s true. In the first couple of years after I became a Christian, I read the Bible from cover to cover three times and the 
New Testament an extra four times for good measure. I’m now quite a few years older, have studied the scriptures formally at a post-graduate level (in Greek and Hebrew) and I still immerse myself in the Bible for hours every week.
So, although I know that I shouldn’t, I can’t help but be somewhat annoyed when people try to tell me what ‘the Bible says’ - particularly when it’s to try and bolster their own prejudices.
Unfortunately, our holy scriptures have been used in this degrading way for centuries. The crusaders used them to justify violence against Muslims. The Bible was quoted to justify ‘divinely-appointed’ slavery for black people only a few decades ago. Scripture is still used in many churches to keep women subordinate to men and to justify discrimination and vilification against gay and lesbian people.
Let’s look at the some of the problems with using the Bible to justify homophobia as an example…
The first problem with using the Bible in this way is that it usually doesn’t take into account the literary or cultural contexts of the text. For instance, I would agree that the story of Sodom’s depravity in Genesis 19 is a shocking one - but not that it reflects any kind of biblical mandate about homosexuality.
In this story, the men of the city of Sodom come to Lot’s door demanding that he hand over to them two male guests from his house; the story is about the evil of gang rape, not about sexual orientation. And if you think that’s twisted, consider Lot’s response: offering the mob his two virgin daughters instead of his houseguests. This isn’t the kind of story that translates easily into modern western culture and it’s certainly not one that we can use to exemplify patterns of moral behaviour.
We know that the biblical authors wrote with a vastly different scientific understanding than what we now possess. We no longer presume a three-tiered universe where heaven sits just above the clouds and hell can be reached if you dig deep enough into the earth. We also recognise that homosexual orientation is not simply the result of moral recalcitrance.
We need to keep working on this topic till we at least cease harming gay and lesbian people who come into churches | Jason Davies-Kildea
The Salvation Army’s own positional statement reminds us that a ‘disposition towards homosexuality is not in itself blameworthy nor is the disposition seen as rectifiable at will’. As far as we can tell, a person’s sexual orientation is, in most cases, something they are born with - whether homosexual or heterosexual.
The Bible continues to speak deeply to many of us about humanity’s ongoing struggle to understand life in the light of an experience of the divine. However, we cannot expect the ancient communities that produced our scriptures to comment transparently on every modern issue, regardless of the distance in time, culture and knowledge.
In addition to condemning male homosexual behaviour (nowhere in the Bible is lesbian behaviour condemned), the book of Leviticus prohibits the eating of any kind of pig’s meat, enforces the social exclusion of people with skin problems like eczema and tells us that both sex and menstruation make us ritually unclean before God. We need to be aware of the temptation to pick and choose what we want to believe from the Bible.
The fact is that the Bible says less about homosexuality than it does about wrongdoing in heterosexual relationships, and it says less about sex altogether than it does about much more significant issues like the abuse of power, the oppression of the poor and the miscarriage of justice. If we are really serious about Christian morality, we need to be very careful about how we use the Bible.
So, if you must continue your prejudice, admit what it is for yourself - and don’t blame the Bible.
Writer: Captain Jason Davies-Kildea is currently serving with his wife, Michelle, at the Brunswick Corps and Community Programmes in Australia. He received a Churchill Fellowship in 2006 and travelled last year to the US, UK and Kenya to look at “models of holistic service, for highly disadvantaged people, which have been established in faith-based communities”. He graduated with a Masters in Theology earlier this month and writes regularly on his own blog, which you can find here.
To read more on the same topic on theRubicon see
Growing up gay in the church.
47 Comments to The Bible says…
Leave a comment
Categories
- Areopagus
- Belief
- Blogroll
- Concise Oxford
- Creation
- Creative Arts
- Double~take
- Easter
- Ecclesia
- Education
- Ephemera
- FAD
- Featured
- From Russia with Blogs
- Gen whY?
- History
- JustThinking
- Lives lived
- Match factory
- Match Factory Events
- Ordination
- Personae
- Power
- Ragamuffin
- Ramblings
- Redux - The Best of
- Resources
- Resurrected writers
- Reviews
- Rubicon Books
- Rubiconography
- Shades of grey
- Shades of grey
- Supper Club
- theRubi-Blog
- Think
- Thinkaloud
- Thought
- Uncategorized
- Urbanities
- Vox populi
Sound and Fury
- I was a teenage fundamentalist - part nine 1 John Stephenson
- The Holiness Movement: Dead or Alive? 4 Rob, David Witthoff, Robyn Bridgeo
- Does size really matter? 4 Stu, Peter Fletcher, Eleanor Burne-Jones
- Deeper shade of grey | Faith House 20 1 Joe Noland
- A call to worship 2 Cheryl, Peter B.
I whole-heartedly agree JDK! Thanks for your insights into this topic. I have seen far too many people within our ranks, damaged due to people’s prejudice against their sexual orientations - some of which hadn’t even “come out” but were more struggling with their emotions and feelings towards someone of the same-sex.
It’s about time we as a church, and as a movement - The Salvation Army - start really looking and really seeing the people that get damaged in light of our arguments about the “issues”.
Thanks again Jason!
From your post-graduate perspective, could you please explain to me how I should properly contextualize and culturally apply Romans 1:26-27. I’m really wrestling with its blatant simplicity and would like to effectively avoid it.
Matt, I’m not sure I can shed much that’s helpful on the Romans passage you mention - except perhaps to suggest that it’s cultural presuppositions are so foreign to our own context that any meaningful comparison is incredibly difficult! You can’t really start at vs.26 because ‘For this reason’ presupposes something important, as does vs.24 with ‘Therefore’. You need to go back to vs. 18-23 to understand that the context for this passage is idolatry and then you realise that the ‘unnatural’ acts that Paul is describing are God’s enforced punishment upon those who worship idols. It’s not a logic that moves me and doesn’t describe the God that I worship.
A more helpful outlook (from Jesus scholar, John Dominic Crossan) is that Paul is essentially right when he suggests that we shouldn’t do what comes unnaturally for us. However, today we are beginning to realise that homosexuality does appear to come naturally to a small, but significant percentage of people. What would, in fact, be unnatural is for them to pretend that they are heterosexuals - or to be condemned to a life of imposed celibacy. Just as we wouldn’t force homosexuality on heterosexual people, neither should we try to force heterosexuality on homosexual people - both are unnatural.
Hope this helps a little.
Regards, JDK
I agree with you that discrimination against homosexuals is a real problem, and I know that it’s a very touchy issue in religious circles in many places. Kind of like when unmarried mothers were (and frequently still are) completely socially ostracised in the earlier half of the 20th century.
I think that there are no “degrees” of sexual immorality, and that immorality in a heterosexual instance is just as immoral as immorality in a homosexual instance. Cultural acceptance of either doesn’t mean that it is any more or less of a problem in God’s eyes.
You are quite right in saying that homophobia is not in the bible; however the need for sexual purity is. Jesus says in Revelation 22:15 that sexually immoral people are going to have real issues when he returns.
And I also would like a response to Matt’s very properly phrased query regarding Romans 1:26-27 , which does seem to stick out in it’s simplicity, and its reference to lesbian behaviour lol
I’ve always found the Romans 1:26-27 passage very odd. It’s almost suggesting God made people gay to punish them…?
The only conclusion I’ve ever drawn from it, apart from it being very unusual, is that Paul probably doesn’t think Homosexual ‘acts’ are acceptable. Even as a gay person, I find it difficult to suggest otherwise from this passage. That adds homosexuality to a list of things Paul doesn’t like; arguably including women in leadership. It excludes it from a list of things he’s fine with; arguably including slavery.
Aside from that, Rowan Williams suggests: “Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage. Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding.”
He goes on to point out that taking the next few lines into consideration, what Paul is actually saying is that “At whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself.”
It’s probably the most powerful anti-homosexual-behaviour passage in the Bible, which given the context and confusion of the passage, isn’t saying that much in my mind.
Matt 2
(Not the same Matt as above!)
Steph, Thanks for bringing up the issue of lesbian behaviour in Romans 1:26. This is the only passage in the Bible which could possibly refer to such acts. Actually all it says is that the women did something unnatural - it doesn’t say that they did it with each other, as it does with the men. I would have to concede that you can argue from the context that this is what Paul means, but there are other possibilities.
The fact that the focus is mostly on male homosexual behaviour, both now and then, I think suggest something more about us than it does about God. My experience is also that men are more homophobic than women - I’m not sure what that means but it may be worth considering…
Regards, JDK
Yes, thank you. The teaching withing this article has also helped me understand 2 Peter 2.
I think Jason’s final 3 paragraphs carry the really important thing to take out of the article. Unfortunately, it does seem that most ‘Christian’ debate on this particular issue stems more from prejudice than it does biblical integrity. My reason for saying this is the sheer vehemence of the arguments from both sides, and the very little love that seems to be shown towards each other.
The same level of simple nastiness in debate is rarely seen in the discussion of hetrosexual sin, or in discussions on gossip or other ‘lesser’ sins. Why would this be?
I’m glad I came across this post today. You’ve caused me to be much more patient in a dialogue I’m currently engaged in. Thanks.
Perhaps you can help with something: Fornication is roundly condemned in scripture. Isn’t any genital expression of homosexuality therefore fornication, since the Biblical representation of marriage is a joining of male and female?
Many thanks
Having just read the illustrated edition of Philip Yancey’s “What’s so amazing about grace?” I can’t help but think about one of the statements:
God loves us because of who He is not who we are.
Will Campbell sums up the gospel in 8 words “We’re all b*st*rds but God loves us anyway.”
This isn’t meant to condone any behaviour but remind myself that I’m meant to love God with everything, and then let everyone around me experience God’s love.
John, I think we need to recognise firstly that there are a number of views about marriage that are represented in the Bible. For instance, there are obviously times when polygamy is quite acceptable (King David and King Solomon are classic examples of this). It’s actually a fascinating subject and worthy of its own article, perhaps at another time.
Regarding homosexuality and marriage, I’ve always been struck by the apparent injustice of saying to gay and lesbian people on the one hand that any sex outside marriage is sinful and on the other hand that we won’t allow you to be married so that your only alternative is lifelong celibacy. I wonder if we need to move away from a focus on specific sexual acts and think more about what qualities we would hope for in human relationships? Married heterosexual relationships are not always inherently holy - some can be quite destructive. Perhaps we could ask, does this relationship enhance the lives of both partners? Do they demonstrate a long term commitment to each other? What kind of ‘fruit’ does their relationship bear for each other and those around them? Does it reflect the kind of love that Paul talks about in 1Cor13 that is read in so many weddings? Something to think about… Regards, JDK
I have written a paper on this subject elsewhere that exists somewhere in cyberspace so I will not regurgitate my views here. However, a few observations:
1) Romans is a book that should be used very sparingly for 1 or even 2 verse proof texts. Jason is right to point us to the context.
2) I would encourage you (I mean y’all) to read NT Wright’s excellent commentary on Romans. Here is an excerpt: “We cannot isolate these verses from Paul’s larger argument, both in this paragraph and in Romans as a whole. From this it is clear that he regards homosexual practice as a dangerous distortion of God’s intention. It is quite logical to say that we disagree with Paul or that in the light of our greater knowledge of human psychology we need to reassess the matter. That can be argued either way. What we cannot do is sideline this passage as irrelevant to Christian ethical debate, or for that matter to the argument of Romans, or to pretend that it means something other than what it says”.
3) I am always surprised, when discussing sexuality, the implicit assumption that ‘every body has the right to have sexual intercourse in the way they want’. Where does such a world view come from? Certainly not from Islam, Judaism or Christianity. Nor from the natural world. It is, I suspect, a logical outcome of Western individualism. As per Wright, the merits of such a worldview can be argued either way, just don’t assume that it is axiomatic.
And therefore, don’t assume that the ‘burden’ (discipline?) of celibacy is bad. As I said to you at the ACC last year Jason, I have two great Aunts, SA officers, who died as ‘old maids’. They were, and are, not the only ones. The burden of celibacy in the Christian community has, in the main, been borne by heterosexuals.
As I have said elsewhere, all that being said, the real issue for me is a pastoral one. What really matters is that I have no doubt that I am called to be loving towards and accepting of the gays and lesbians I encounter and so is my Christian community. This is particularly true when I do not have all, or perhaps any, of the answers on this issue.
And by the way, I spent some time writing the original and better version of this comment however when I submitted it, it vanished because I had neglected to put in my details. That is really annoying!
So some of the argument is based on the following:
“God made me gay, but won’t let me express it. That’s not very nice!”
I’m interested in reading some of the studies that conclude sexuality is genetic. I’ve heard of them but never read any. I’ve heard of some of the research by Dr Bob Spitzer of Columbia Uni which indicated that after undergoing some sort of ‘therapy’, 60% of (formerly) gay men and 40% of (formerly) lesbian were able to sustain a heterosexual relationship.
I’m looking forward to reading a load of twin studies. Will look at those when my exams are done
Hi Grant, I agree with you that the pastoral dimension is vital in this debate - though I’m not sure good pastoral practice can be applied without some implicit theology, so we can’t ignore the theological/biblical issues. My point has been that we can’t hide behind them either.
For those not at ACC last year, I would still affirm that there is a significant distinction between celibacy that is enforced (ie. by church rules) and celibacy that arises from life’s circumstances and perhaps also from the celibacy that some find as a gift.
John, I think you’ll find the studies are a little like the Biblical references - that is largely inconclusive and mainly of interest to those who have already made up their mind. But don’t let me dissuade you from trying…
Personally, I have found the best source of understanding to have been genuinely open conversations with gay and lesbian people about their experience. This also works both on the level of theological reflection and pastoral practice.
Regards, JDK
It has always interested me how come this particular issue gets so much play, both in society at large and in the church.
In Canada, a reasonable estimate has it that possibly 2-3 per cent of our population can be considered gay or lesbian. Yet pretty much every day there is something in the news connected in the some way with this community. The amount of attention this particular sub-culture garners is quite disproportionate.
In the lead up to our government passing the same-sex marriage bill a few years ago, the evangelical community went to war through protests, prayer, petitions and exhortations from pulpits throughout the land. The generally accepted notion among the evangelicals was that if our society permitted gay and lesbian folk to marry, then this would be the beginnning of the end for the nuclear family unit, which is the cornerstone of society and therefore everything would just fall apart.
It occurred to me at the time (and still does) odd that as a church we were willing to collectively join hands in order to combat this evil - something that affects maybe 2-3 percent of our population - when we have individually and collectively remained strangely silent on other - truly moral and ethical issues.
For example, up to 15 percent of Canadian children apparently live below the poverty line. For example, Canada’s aboriginal people, while only making up 2 per cent of our national population, comprise up to 20 percent of the inmates in our provincial and federal prisons. For example, over 90 percent of the homicides, gun deaths, in my city (Toronto) are black, males. Etc…
We pick strange battles to fight, I’m thinking. While biblically and theologically I can’t go as far as Jason has in his article, on the other hand I don’t really give it much thought on a daily basis, in spite of the constant reminders in the press. There are more important issues to ponder in my world.
A very helpful resource on this issue is the book “Slaves, Women and Homosexuals” (quite the title, I know). It looks at biblical and cultural context from a very wide variety of perspectives. I found it helpful.
Geoff, I’m with you there. That is the reason I refused to sign petitions against gay marriage. It is not that I am for same sex marriage, but that I hadn’t seen many petitions floating around condemning child poverty or war etc…First things first, perhaps.
Grace,
Aaron
With both you and Geoff on this one Aaron. Whilst I do see a lot of prejudice on this one, I struggled incredibly when I was in Latvia. Whilst all around the churches were fighting the ’scourge’ of homosexuality they rarely had the same passion for the homeless and deep poverty that surrounded them! It reached a head for me when blatant lies were being told to scare church members into signing petitions!
Why are statistics cited on children in poverty rather than families?
There are stats on family poverty, but children in poverty are the most vulnerable. In Canada as a adult you still do have many options for help. As a child you are dependent upon the adults in your life to secure that help. So the impact of poverty can be most devastating for poor children.
Grace,
Aaron
Last year I did some research on the subject of homelessness and found the very shocking statistic that stated the average age of a homeless person in the US at 6 years old.
I find myself very frustrated as well by not only the church, but the entire political system (in the US at least) which I feel only focus only on a handful of polarizing issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) in order to gain some sort of financial or political support while simultaneously ignoring issues that effect a far larger population. Homosexuals are not going to be changed to not be homosexual, a persons viewpoint on abortion is not going to be changed; however, we could easily stop the exploitation of the poor, effectively end genocide, clean up the planet, regulate big business more effectively (look it up, I can almost guarantee that you pay more taxes annually than ExxonMobil, etc.), and put sustainable food sources and clean water back into the hands of the hungry and dying… if we wanted to. All that is lacking is political will.
So yes, I am tired of pointless debating (to a special degree concerning those debates lacking in love and understanding). Than being said, I really enjoyed this article!
A lot of the problems you all are citing as more major than gay marriage — childhood poverty, homelessness, violent youth — many people would link to the crash in family stability over the last roughly half century. So, with that background, it makes more sense that people concerned about all those problems would seemingly overreact to redefining (read: weakening) marriage and family. Two to 3 percent of the population may be gay; everyone, sort of, has a family.
Also, a lot of people perceive a real drive by progressive factions to rid the culture of any vestige of western, Christian tradition (a perceived oppressor culture). “Education” has been defined away from its link to inculcation in the western, classical, (sometimes) Christian canon. Similarly, “family” (and even “gender”) are being redefined away from their traditional meanings. I believe it was the Cato Institute, that suggested a resolution to the debate on gay marriage as a formal separation of the two marriages — secular and religious. So, if you are a religious person that’s been working for religious expression in public life (public prayer, Christmas displays, etc.), the news that now the traditional, western cultural definintion of marriage is being changed is seen as a new front in a larger war against your culture. Again, that explains why the response is outsized.
So, a lot of the debate in the U.S. over gay marriage was manipulated for political purposes, but, in context, the uproar is less than surprising. And while homophobia may be part of it, I would identify it as just a part of a larger picture.
Catherine,
I get what you’re saying, and there is a protect the family and faith thing going on there, to be sure. But I suspect that divorce, particularly amongst Christians, has done a much better job of destabilizing the family than the prospect of same sex marriage has.
Grace,
Aaron
Aaron:
You took the words right out of my mouth. I get so sick of these conservative Christian groups trying to link every problem in society back to gay marriage. I find it difficult to perceive how childhood poverty or homelessness is linked to two homosexuals who wish to live in a committed, monogamous relationship. Such an assertion takes quite a bit of imagination.
Groups like Focus on the Family spend an awful lot of time, energy and money trying to focus on everyone else’s family. The church needs to get itself in shape and realign its priorities with those of the Kingdom.
As an aside, I think there needs to be a distinction made between civil marriage and Christian marriage. As a Christian denomination, we should be offering marriage ceremonies in our corps in a Christian context, similar to soldier enrollment. It is a covenant between the couple and God. Somewhere along the way, we (SA officers) became extensions of our local governments and now solemnize marriage between just about any couple, just as long as they both don’t sign the Marriage Register under “Groom”. We usually expect the couple to go through some pre-marital counselling, but we often end up wedding two people who have no Christian commitment - just two people who want to be married in a church instead of at city hall.
I say that legally recognized marriages be performed by the appropriate legal bodies. If Christians want to express their vows to one another and God in the context of fellow believers, then the corps can do that. But otherwise, we are essentially stating that we will perform a very limited spiritual exercise with two heterosexual unbelievers, but not with a homosexual couple. Apparently one couple is more deserving of our services than others.
Aaron, I think you’re right. But that’s the context (divorce, changes in women’s roles) that conservatives are reacting in when they explode about gay marriage. The gay marriage issue blew up beyond what was warranted by the “threat” because of those larger, longer trends that are seen as destabilizing families and because of a defensiveness stemming from fears of cultural annihilation at the hands of progressives. And, sure, some homophobia too.
For being such an expert on the Bible, you sure haven’t cited much of it. I agree that there is no excuse for being unkind to anyone given in the Bible. But telling people that sin is not a sin is not helping anyone. It’s like saying, “well, I don’t like the rules, so I think I will change them.” What is taking place here is that the intellect of man is being exalted over the power in the blood of the Lamb to redeem. Let’s not single out any one sin, sickness or disease as being too difficult for God to handle. He is not the problem! In the absence of experience of the power of God, we reduce it to fit our intellect and replace the truth of God’s word for something we can explain.
The homosexual community is divided on the issue of genetics. At first they embraced it as an excuse for their behavior, then they realized that it made them seem like it was a disease. So, they moved away from the genetic theory to being a lifestyle of choice. The fact is, all choices have consequences in the natural as well as in the spiritual. To ignore that truth does not make it go away, any more than ignoring the law of gravity will keep you from falling. We must believe in Gospel filled with Power, not of legalism or mere intellectualism. Don’t explain away sin, Share the love and power of Jesus to redeem the whole person.
Robyn:
I think what Jason and others are questioning here is whether or not homosexuality is even a sin to begin with. It is not about eliminating or redefining sin, but rather I see this as an important exercise in distinguishing between absolute sins and cultural norms. While some may see that as an attempt to explain sin away, it is not. It is a genuine attempt to understand the biblical message for today (let’s face it, the Bible isn’t always that clear) and to reconcile that with the love of God.
If it is not the intention of the Bible to condemn homosexuality, even though we may read it that way, isn’t it an important task to reveal that? If not for this understanding of things like cultural context, we might still forbid women to preach, allow people to be enslaved, and permit polygamy. I am not saying I have come to the correct conclusion, but it is an important discussion to have. For the record, my own stance is that homosexuality is not God’s intended plan, but rather it is an unfortunate consequence of the Fall. I may change my opinion down the road because I keep an open mind about my theology. The question now is: How should the church respond? I know this much - it is not by wagging our finger and telling gays that it’s easy to change. And it’s not by violting their rights just because I might feel uncomfortable.
As for the comment about switching between genetics and choice, this is an unfair generalization. The issue is much more difficult than flip-flopping for convenience sake. Most biologists and sociologists today agree that whatever the origin is, homosexuality is influenced by both nature and nurture. I know a couple of homosexuals who want to be church-going Christians, but the message they keep getting (and it’s frustrating them) is that Jesus’ power can free them. They have prayed about it; received therapy; even forced themselves to attempt heterosexual relationships. But they have not ‘changed’ (at least in the way ‘we’ want them to) and that leads to depression and anxiety. How would we feel if we prayed for somethng that we were promised we should have, but never get it? This is not a game… these are people’s lives. Let’s not forget that. Nor should we make assertions that we have yet to fully prove.
Agreed Catherine. I actually don’t hold that same-sex marriage is biblically supportable, but the reaction is kind of off the charts.
Grace,
Aaron
Juan,
My zeal is for the integrity of scripture and not against homosexuality. I do not take pleasure in arguing, but I trust that my comments are an encouragement to you. I love the word of God and want to remain true to Him above all else.
1. Cultural Context - Women in Ministry - Deborah was a powerful prophetess and judge, but she served in default to Barak’s disobedience. Hannah ministered unto the Lord in prayer for many years without getting her answer. Do you think it barreness was an easy thing to do in a culture where bearing a son was held in such high esteem? No! Did she accept barreness as God’s will for her life. No! She was persistant in prayer until she received. Esther ministered in the palace as queen and at much risk,saved her people. Ruth trusted the Lord and went from being a widow in a foriegn land to a bride in the lineage of Jesus. There are several mentions of women in both the old and new testaments. Mary responds, “With God all things are possible” to an angel’s news that she a virgin would be bearing the Son of God. Easy news to hear? NO! Did she repond in faith? Yes! Then there was the women set free from a life of prostitution, who was so thankful that she washed the feet of Jesus with her tears and dried them with her hair. Many others are mentioned as well. Paul opens up a can of worms in 1 Corinthians 14:34, “women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.” (NIV)The first time I saw a women preach was in The Salvation Army. In my ignorance, I was so offended that I walked out. As I grew in the Lord, pursued further education and revelation I now understand. The big picture of this text is not putting a muzzle on women, but on orderly worship. This is the framework for which this statement was made. In verse 26 it says, “When you come together, EVERYONE has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue, two or three at the most (or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.” This is the lens in which the text must be viewed.
1.Tongues-2 or 3 at the most! vs.27
2.No interpreter-sit & be quiet.vs.28
3.If Revelation comes from someone seated - the speaker is to be quiet.
Paul reinforces his main premise in verse 31, “For you can ALL prophecy in turn so that EVERYONE may be instructed.”
4.Women - be silent vs.34 Greek – “Sigao” to hold one’s peace or wait until you get home.
“They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.”
a. Speaks – Greek is laleo – to use words in order to declare one’s mind and disclose one’s thoughts
b. Submission – Hupotasso - A Greek military term meaning “to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader”. In non-military use, it was “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden”.
c. Law - Adam Clarke in his commentaries speaks of the Law as a reference to Genesis 3:16: “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
Notice that women were the last ones told to be silent therefore serving as a reminder of something common to them. It was the duty of a husband to teach his wife the things of God that he had learned and if the wife were to publicly ask a question it would bring shame on the husband for shirking his teaching duties. That would most certainly disrupt the service and thereby violating everyone who has come to be strengthened and instructed.
I want you to know that I spent a lot of time in prayer and study to respond to you. I would love to continue this discussion with anyone interested.
My email address is http://www.rbridgeo1@yahoo.com.
Robyn:
I am not sure what the ‘women in ministry’ entry has to do with the ongoing discussion here. I made a brief reference to it in my earlier entry to make a point. And the point is: that just as many Christians considered women unequal to men based on reading the Scriptures out of context, some Christians also feel that the ‘inferiority’ of homosexuality to heterosexuality is also based on poor exegesis. And that just as most Christians, esp. Salvationists, now regard men and women equally, so too should homosexuality be looked upon as being an option equal to heterosexuality. I am not saying this is my opinion, but that is an opinion held by many Christians and deserves to be heard.
I hope I did not imply that I thought women should not preach or lead because that is not my viewpoint. I actually consider myself a bit of a feminist. But that is probably another topic - one that doesn’t need re-hashing in TSA. We’ve worked that out theoretically, if not in practice yet. If we don’t believe in women preachers or leaders in TSA, we need to worship and serve elsewhere!
Back to the subject at hand, I was merely suggesting that it’s always important to study the Bible in context. Sometimes the context will reveal something quite different than what first appears in the text. Some other times, it may not add much nor change what is said. But there are Christians who are trying to look at this issue from all angles - not to conform to worldly pressures, but to be as true to God’s will as possible.
In fact your own previous entry expresses what I am writing about. You said that when you first heard a woman preacher you were offended. But now, after study and revelation, you have had a change of heart. Could this happen again? An advocate of Christian homosexual marriage might ask you to consider if the offense that you currently experience with homosexuality might one day dissipate and turn into acceptance as well? It may not, but there are well-meaning believers who think that way.
Robyn, I appreciate your prayerful consideration of this subject. Although there are only about half a dozen possible references to homosexual behaviour in the Bible, this format doesn’t really give the opportunity to examine each one in detail. If you want to see an explanation in more detail with scriptural references try http://www.dldewey.com/columns/biblef05.htm I don’t agree with it 100% but it covers the essentials pretty well.
Regards, JDK
Wow - quite the debate going on here huh?!
Most people have made some really really valid points, though some have indeed missed what I feel is the point of Jason’s article… and that is that God calls us to love people, and that homophobia is not shedding God’s love to people.
So I want to reiterate what I wrote in my first comment - we need to stop looking at “the issue” and start looking at the “PEOPLE” for whom “the issue” we are debating is a daily reality.
Last night, a very dear friend of mine, who happens to be a very committed Christian, and whom spends her life devoted to serving the poor and marginalized, told me that she thinks she’s a lesbian. Before she was became a Christian, she had lived with a few women, but upon meeting Jesus, and getting involved in the church, she got into a few relationships with men, but has just never found a “true love”. Over the past few months, she’s developed a really close friendship with a Christian woman, and they both feel that this relationship is a deeply spiritual and emotional one..that they are soul mates, and that their love for each other is both as friends, as soulmates, and sexually. They are both struggling deeply with what this all means. As yet they have not “consumated” their relationship, but they are very much in love. As she poured out her heart to me, and told me all about this relationship and what it is doing for her. The more she talked to me, the more I kept thinking, she’s still the same friend she was before she “came out”, my love for her only deepened as she shared how broken up inside and questioned “why did God make me wrong? I thought God didn’t make mistakes - then why am I gay?”
It took me back to a conversation I had with a friend overseas who was grappling exactly the same problem… and the conversation I had with a friend from my old Corps … only they, they were called to Officership… now one barely attends the Army, and the other, only just returned to “the fold”… I knew all I could offer was my prayers and love.
So I prayed and prayed for her and with her - and the more I prayed, the more the love for her inside me grew… and the knowledge that she is a precious and beautiful child of the Creator, and my only job on this earth is to love her. Is to be the light always. Love and grace, love and grace… what I think doesn’t matter, I just have to love her.
So instead of jumping up and down and debating day in day out about the “issue” of homosexuality , I’m going to do what God has called us to do (and the real point, correct me if I’m wrong JDK, of this blog) and that is LOVE the person.
Thanks to all who have commented so far. The genesis of this blog (originally written as a letter to On Fire magazine in the Australian Southern Territory) came from a number of conversations that I had with Christians who said they couldn’t accept homosexual people because the Bible said their behaviour was wrong.
Actually I don’t see this as a hermeneutic issue: though I don’t agree with it, I can concede that it’s a reasonable reading of some texts to suggest that homosexual acts were not approved by some of the Biblical writers. (Just as it’s reasonable to sometimes see patriarchal bias, nationalism bordering on xenophobia, and a range of other parochial attitudes)
What I don’t agree with is the idea that the Bible creates barriers to our love and acceptance of other people. Is the love of God that we’re meant to share with the world really so conditional that I can use a few culturally conditioned texts to withold it if I choose? That’s what I’m saying a clear ‘no’ about.
Regards, JDK
Sarah:
I don’t know if “what I think doesn’t matter, I just have to love her” is the best approach. She’s confused; if you can help her through that, that’s a real gift to her. So, I would ask around and try to find some guidance on the issue. Coming out of my Roman Catholic experience, I really like “Theology of the Body for Beginners” by Christopher West as a clear, positive explanation of the sacred nature of marriage; maybe someone else can recommend resources more aligned with Army doctrine (something that puts homosexuality on a different level than eczema, maybe?) that could help you and your friend think things through. Blessings to you both.
So far this discussion has avoided cheap off-hand, you could even say sarcastic, comments so it’s a shame to see people starting to indulge in this.
Something this discussion has shown is that simply saying that someone is confused when they have homosexual tendencies is probably not that helpful. I have several gay friends who proclaim faith in Christ, some of whom have been able to put aside their desires, others who have not.
In the end all we can do is express our views and adhere to our beliefs out of love for the individual. In the end it will be God who judges that individual out of His infinite love for everyone. We have to trust him and seek to live holy lives, encouraging others to do likewise, and seek not to condemn, out of hand, people whose experience many of us cannot even begin to understand.
Finally, it never ceases to amaze me how we major on two sinful activities, yet simply ignore other sins which are the remit of the religious and for which God judged the people of Israel extremely harshly by exiling them. The world would almost certainly be a better place if these same sins were not still as prevalant in the church as they were back then!
There is no way to proclaim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and simultaneously hold that homosexual activity is up for debate. The clear Biblical teaching is that, as Christians, we are to refrain from homosexual activity, regardless of our own individual sexual “orientation”.
As for “forced celibacy”?!?!?! Please! I feel like eating 2 pounds of chocolate cake every night before I go to sleep - if Scripture tells me not to be gluttonous am I being forced into not starving?! I think not. God has given us tremendous blessing and very clear guidelines and boundaries as to how we should enjoy those blessings. Don’t think He takes it lightly when we abuse them.
1 Timothy 1 (NASB) clearly states that homosexuality is contrary to sound teaching. I have to agree with one of the earlier commenters (”Matt”) that the teaching within this article represents the kind of false teaching that Peter warns about in 2 Peter 2.
The clear Biblical teaching is that, when God saw that it was not good for man to be alone, he gave him a woman, not another man. It has always been detestable in the eyes of God for someone to have sex with another person of the same sex - it distorts his natural plan for humankind.
I also find it amusing that several Christians skirt these issues by tossing out the obligatory “What about poverty, etc.?” Yes, those issues are important, but, like my wife says to me when we are arguing, “Can we please stick to one thing at a time?”
If a young lady came to you and said, “I’m madly in love with my boyfriend; we’re soul mates and have a very strong sexual attraction. We’re thinking of consummating the relationship,” I earnestly hope you would counsel her to hold on a minute and think things through — explain that God values her so much, he doesn’t want her to squander her purity on passing flings and selfish physical indulgences. And there’s this great, holy institution called marriage in which she and her soulmate can participate in the blessed process of creation.
If a young lady came to you and said, “I’m madly in love with my girlfriend; we’re soul mates and have a very strong sexual attraction. We’re thinking of consummating the relationship,” I earnestly hope you would be able to give as coherent advice. God loves you should be part of it; and then the Army position is that, while this relationship may be extremely important, even the central relationship of her life, consummating it would be sinful. I honestly don’t have sufficient experience on this issue to be able to say whether that’s right or wrong, or under what conditions it might be considered OK, so I’ll leave that to others.
The confusion I was referring to was the notion that being in love and having a strong sexual attraction is sufficient justification to consummate a relationship. That’s the world’s standard; if you want to see what a paradise that is for young women, you could take a browse through “Unhooked” by a Washington Post reporter whose name excapes me. I’ve never had eczema so maybe I’m underestimating the analogy, but sexual immorality can be pretty debilitating and confusing, whether you are gay or straight. I think Sarah’s friend deserves better advice.
Jeremiah,
The reference to poverty is not an attempt not to talk about these things. It is an attempt to put things in perspective.
I don’t think same sex marriage can be supported biblically, and I’m happy to talk about that. But it doesn’t mean I will sign petitions, when it seems to me there are a few more urgent things requiring our attention. But for a awhile now it seems that there has been a significant imbalance of attention given to homosexuality by evangelical Christianity. It isn’t that it doesn’t matter, it’s just that this is not the one issue that should define us.
Grace,
Aaron
It’s a shame that these comments are no longer as constructive as some of the earlier dialogue was, however Jeremiah’s comment deserves some right of reply.
If the Bible is indeed the inerrant word of God, then the passage you have quoted from the NASB is a poor representation. As the word ‘homosexual’ is only a couple of hundred years old in the English language, it is dubious at best to make a direct correlation between our modern understanding of same-sex relationships and the writer’s intent in 1 Timothy. The Greek word that is used here is arsenokoitai, which is translated variously as perverts (NEB,NIV), sexual perverts (NAB) and sodomites (RSV, NRSV). Luther translated it into the German with a word that means ‘child abusers’, probably because the few other ancient Greek sources use it in the context of pederasty and paedophilia - quite distinct concepts to homosexuality. The most literal translation is something like ‘a man lying’ which could possibly refer to the phrase in Leviticus 18:22 but even this is far from certain. (By the way, I’ll be the first to listen to anyone who is keeping all of the laws of Leviticus - about this or any other topic.)
The reality of the matter is that this word could refer to a number of practices common in the ancient world in contexts that are vastly different from committed, same-sex relationships. It is significant to note that the same list in 1Tim1:9-11 also includes liars - a fact worth pausing to consider.
Let’s not trivialise this. I first started learning about this topic because of the number of gay and lesbian people I have met who were deeply damaged by their experience of church. It’s worthy of some serious consideration.
Regards, JDK
The thing about the Levitical laws though, is that inside of Scripture there is a movement away from certain things, a progressive revelation if you will. So it is pretty consistently held throughout Scripture that you should not lie, but taking care of mold doesn’t really show up all that much anywhere else.
And there is definitely a “progressive” move in Scripture when talking about, for example, women and slaves. In both cases even in the OT the ethic was more progressive than the surrounding cultures, and became more and more so later on in Scripture.
I don’t think this case can be made for the issue of homosexuality in Scripture. It could be argued that the surrounding cultures were far more permissive of homosexual relationships than what we see in Scripture, and there really is no movement at all towards a greater permissiveness even into the New Testament.
Yes, I’ve heard it argued before that the New Testament passages are concerned with temple prostitution etc… and not committed same sex relationships. I’m not really convinced at that, but even if they are it does not really give a positive argument for same sex relationships.
All this does not in any way exempt me from loving my gay and lesbian friends. There are a wide variety of “gender identifications” within our congregation, and everyone is loved. But we are also clear about where we stand on homosexuality, and people actually seem ok with that, as our default reaction to them (as with anyone) is to always try to be loving. (We are also very serious about the issue of lying).
Grace,
Aaron
Comparing sexual sins to old testament cleanliness rules I think is a bit dismissive of the profound impact of the former. In an article that makes a good point about discrimination, I think that’s a weak point. Of course you shouldn’t let homophobia deter you from expressing God’s love to the people you encounter; the only contrasting point I would make is that you shouldn’t let voco-homo-phobic-phobia (fear of being called homophobic) deter you from steering people away from sinful behavior, either. As Stephanie said, the goal should be equality of treatment.
Based on the comments, many people here seem to take issue with the Army’s position on this issue and it might be a good follow-up article to articulate what you see as the problem and how the policy should be changed. What constitutes a Holy gay relationship?
Aaron, I appreciate your thoughts on progressive revelation and in general, I’m in agreement on this. It does perhaps prompt the question about whether God’s revelation ceases at the end of the book of Revelation, but perhaps this is the subject of another article…
Which brings me to Catherine’s point, which is equally valid. We’re now past the point of 40 comments here (probably too many of them my own) and have explored some important related issues as well. All this is great but does make it difficult to keep track of where we started. I will consider a follow up article - possibly on holy relationships (which may include homosexual relationships), though I’m happy for someone else to run with the idea first
Regards, JDK
JDK,
I think it is more than fair to explore a progressive revelation beyond Revelation, as long as we are still being guided by the movement of Scripture. I think the Church has quite rightly come forward (albeit slowly and sometimes tortuously) on the issue of slaves and women. Scripture leads us in that direction. But I’m not sure it leads us in that direction (ie, towards a greater permissiveness) on the issue of homosexuality.
Still, I think we do need to deepen our thinking in the realm of holy relationships.
Grace,
Aaron
Bishop Gene Robinson has built his perspective on homosexuality within an orthodox, biblical faith on the idea of progressive revelation, not only within scripture, but beyond it too. It is a perspective of biblical inspiration, not inerrancy. Here’s an extract from an interview which you can read in full here .
Q: Many say they don’t see this as just an issue of sexuality, but it’s about scripture and how they look at scripture. How do you assure them that moving in this direction isn’t going to throw away huge parts of the scripture they so love?
A: I usually start by reminding them that they too pick and choose, that there are many passages of scripture that they do not hold as being eternally true. We forget that. The most dramatic example, of course, is our changing attitude toward divorce and remarriage. The scriptures report right out of Jesus’ mouth that remarriage following divorce is adultery. Now the church has come to a different place about that, partly because we’ve seen second marriages be a blessing both to the couple and to the community around them. But also we’ve rethought our notion of excommunicating, that is, not allowing someone to come to Communion who has been divorced, at the very time they need Communion the most. And so their attitudes have changed about this. Many of the people who bring up the scripture question are themselves divorced and remarried. They’re not repentant about it. They, you know, they may be sorry for having hurt their partner, or they may be sorry indeed that they’re divorced, but they are not repentant about their new marriage. So I try to point out to them that, you know, the church changes its mind about things, and indeed in John’s gospel Jesus says this amazing thing. He says there is much more that I would want to share with you, he’s saying to the disciples — this is at the Last Supper — but you are not able to bear them right now, and so I will send the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth. And that’s exactly what I think we see happening. We’ve seen the Spirit lead us into the truth. For 18, 19 centuries we use scripture to justify slavery. We use scripture to justify the degradation and the suppression of women, and certainly with gay and lesbian people. We’ve changed our minds about those things, and I would say that’s because the Holy Spirit, God’s Spirit moving amongst us, is alive and well and interacting with us all the time and, I would say, leading us into all truth.
The question was raised early on in the comments as to why in his writings, Paul did not object to slavery, among other things.
My own belief is that he did not envision a world in which all men and women were viewed to be equal. Indeed, such a view is only a fairly recent one. We take for granted that all people have intrinsic value. Outside of divine revelation - and who knows why God didn’t reveal this to him - he couldn’t have foreseen a society that was built on the principle (albeit not an enforced principle) that all men are created equal and have certain inalienable rights.
It seems to me that anytime Paul lists sins, he mentions only ones that the individual himself has control over. He seems more concerned with the state of one’s individual heart than he does with the affairs of the state or government, except to say that we should submit ourselves to the governing authorities…
———
On another note, will you permit me to bring up something a little crass, but which I think is painfully obvious:
Aren’t homosexual acts unnatural in the first place? If you look at our bodies biologically, isn’t it clear that sex was meant to be between a man and a woman? Maybe I am simple-minded.
It seems to me that people who engage in homosexual activity are actually doing more harm to themselves than to anyone else. (I’m not sure I buy the whole “Homosexuals are ruining society” argument.) If we are called to love everyone as we love ourselves, shouldn’t part of that love be to inform people of the truth - that they may be doing harm to themselves - and the availability of Christian counselors who might be able to provide much needed guidance on the issue?
Forgive the jumbled thoughts. And, JDK, for the record, although my first comment was a little intense, I sincerely intended for it to be constructive. I just have a passion for the truth, like you.
Jeremiah, you may want to check out an old article on the Christian Medical Fellowship website. It talks about some of health risks and consequences of anal sex:
http://www.cmf.org.uk/literature/content.asp?context=article&id=348
There was a time in medical history when it was thought that smoking was good for you. With development of medical research, we learned that it is actually very harmful. Perhaps a similar sort of understanding is developing with gay sex.
Hi Catherine,
Thank you for your comment in response to mine. Obviously I’m not going to share the ins and outs of my relationship with this girl, or with the countless other homosexual friends I have that cannot find love within the church, however I will take your advice and look up that book. I want to reiterate, I’m in this for the long haul, that I speak to many gender experts within the church to seek advice and guidance from them - not once have I told her “it’s okay”, I’m just called to love her and show her grace. The rest, that’s up to God, and if I’m open to speak His words of love and truth into her life, He will take care of the rest.
Jason I agree with everything you write on this subject.
I’ve just read the Salvation Army positional statement on Homosexuality ( http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/SALV/STANDARD/PC_60050.html ) and wish to highlight a few sentences, and ask if you agree with them…
1) It is The Salvation Army’s belief that, whilst recognising the possibility of such orientation, (the origins of which are uncertain), the Bible expressly opposes homosexual practice, seeing such activity as rebellion against God’s plan for the created order.
2) The Bible teaches that God’s intention for humankind is that society should be ordered on the basis of lifelong, legally sanctioned heterosexual unions.
3) Homosexual practice however, is, in the light of Scripture, clearly unacceptable.
4)Such activity is chosen behaviour and is thus a matter of the will.
Thanks.