Is there a place for me?

A reader writes in, "What exactly does the bible say about homosexuality and is there a place for people like me in the Church?"

The issue with Homosexuality in the Bible is not what the text SAYS, but what it MEANS and how we have to interpret it for a situation that was unknown in Biblical culture - namely two people of the same gender living in a long-term monogamous sexual relationship. I read an excellent article yesterday by my former Old Testament professor, Ellen Davis. (The article can be found here.) She states, "The Bible does not unambiguously endorse any position, either for or against committed same-sex unions, and both positions are open to serious challenge from the Gospel." I will present the most common texts and a summary of Davis' commentary.

Gen. 2:24 "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh."

This is a positive statement. As Davis puts it, "Producing a valid prohibition from a positive Biblical statement is a dicey matter." Some Roman Catholics read, "Be fruitful and multiply" as a prohibition against birth control, while protestants do not.

Lev. 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

and

Lev. 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

These are actually two of the most popular verses to cite, although Christians routinely ignore the rest of Leviticus. Sometimes, the argument is made that there is a division between "moral" and "cultic" law in Leviticus, and that Christians are still bound by the moral law, but this distinction is something Leviticus itself does not recognize. The commandments of Leviticus are a holiness code that regulates an integrated cultic and moral life for the people of Israel in the promised land that cannot be taken apart piecemeal. Leviticus scholar Jacob Milgrom argues that the prohibition on homosexuality is clear and binding, but is limited only to males of the people of Israel who inhabit the Holy Land.

Rom. 1:26-27 ¶ For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural,  and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

1Cor. 6:9-10 ¶ Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

In these passages, Paul is criticizing behavior that "taken as a whole reveal contempt or hatred for God." They are acts that are "purient, exploitative, and wholly devoid of commitment or mutual nurturance." The interpretational question is whether the acts that Paul condemns are in the same category as those in a long-term same-gender relationship.

There are no passages in the Gospels that address this issue directly.

On the other hand, there is no specific scriptural support for same-gender relationships. However, the most thoughtful proponents of this position also engage with scripture.

New Testament scholar Walter Wink argues that, while the Bible has no sexual ethic as such, it does have a love ethic, “which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in a given . . . culture.” Those whohold this position view the mutual loving commitment demonstrated by same-sex couples within the Christian community as a faithful witness that constrains the church as a whole to reevaluate how the Spirit of God is working among us.

Despite what some may say, the proponents of both positions come to their conclusions with great respect for the Bible and it is unlikely that this debate will be settled anytime soon. Respect is called for in a debate between believers who are engaged at a deep level with the Holy Scriptures.

As far as whether there is a place in the Episcopal Church for people of Homosexual orientation, my answer is "yes," although I will defer to Integrity, which represents GLBT Epsicopalians for a fuller explanation:

Q: Where does the Episcopal Church stand on gay and lesbian issues?

A:The Episcopal Church is still wrestling with the full inclusion of gay and lesbian folk and their equal access to the sacraments--though we are further ahead than most denominations. Many dioceses and congregations are actively supportive, a few are actively hostile, and most are somewhere in between.

In 1976 the General Convention of the Episcopal Church passed the following resolutions...

Resolved, that it is the sense of this General Convention that homosexual persons are children of God and have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church.

Resolved, that this General Convention expresses its conviction that homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws with all other citizens, and calls upon our society to see that such protection is provided in actuality.

In 1994 the General Convention of passed the following resolution...

No person shall be denied rights, status, or an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified by Canon.

In 1997 the General Convention Church passed the following resolution...

That this 72nd General Convention apologizes on behalf of the Episcopal Church to its members who are gay or lesbian and to lesbians and gay men outside the Church for years of rejection and maltreatment by the Church; . . . That this Church repents of its sins committed against lesbian and gay people—physical, psychological and spiritual—through covert and overt action and inaction. We seek amendment of our life together and we ask for God’s help in sharing the Good News with all people.

David+

Further Information:

Anglican Theological Review, Summer 2008, Homosexuality, Ethics and the Church

Inclusive Orthodoxy

Integrity Website

Anglican, Bible, Christianity, Episcopal, homosexuality, theology

Comments

[Raycol]

While I agree with the tenor of your reply, I would like to point out another approach to the question of homosexuality and the church. While the Bible says that sex between men (homosexual activity) is wrong, I would suggest that the Bible’s prohibition on homosexual activity does not apply to men today when the sexual activity causes no harm. Also, the prohibition does not apply to men today because it applied only to the ancient Israelite and Greek-Roman cultures of Bible times. Reasons supporting these conclusions are given on the “Gay and Christian” website at www.gaysandslaves.com.

[Charles Hawkins]

The URL above is to a lecture I gave in 2004 at St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Louisville, Kentucky where I serve as Rector. You might find it interesting.

[Charles Hawkins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx6uSGPS_PQ

[Randy]

I once posed this question at my United Church of Christ and got a stony response. Certain sexual behaviors besides same-gender are forbidden in the Leviticus passage: incest and (as it is now called) zoophilia. If the sanctions regarding the one behavior are applied less stringently, is the same principle are applied to the other sanctions? I'm trying to phrase the question with some decorum. And I'll leave it at that.

[FrSimmons]

The question is, should we be drawing our Christian moral reasoning from Leviticus at all? It is an integrated code meant for Israelites in the promised land. Many Jewish scholars actually question whether Leviticus applies to Jews outside of Israel, since the text repeats over and over that these are the commandments to be followed by Israelites in the promised land. In addition, Paul makes it clear that Christians are not bound by the law. Christ gives the apostles the authority to "Bind and Loose," which is the rabbinic authority to interpret scripture to varied need. So, practicing one behavior that is "prohibited by Leviticus" does not effect other parts of Christian Morality unless they work on the same principle.