Homosexuality: Some Arguments Considered
What’s All This About Homosexuality Then?
One of the things which surprises new students at York (and other Universities) is the prominence of the Lesbian and Gay Society and of the issue of Homosexuality. This oppressed group within society as a whole finds attitudes within Universities more open and accepting; and University is often a time when people are testing out their sexuality — as well as ideas, life-styles or beliefs.
The Christian responses to Homosexuality are more significant here than they are outside Universities. That can be a problem because it is an issue on which Christians are sharply divided. That can be seen on Church statements about “Sexuality” — many of which have tried to support a liberal view, but most of which have failed to be accepted by the Conferences, Synods, Assemblies to which they are presented. Two main positions are thus in tension with each other:-
1) Homosexual acts are wrong. Homosexuality is an unfortunate defect, which cannot be changed but any physical desires should be sublimated.
2) Homosexual relations between stable couples are to be judged by the same understanding of Christian love as applied to all relationships.
Neither position should lead to a lack of love towards Gay or Lesbian people, but the first can sometimes be felt that way — and regarded as “homophopia.”
Those adopting the first position believe it to be “biblical”, but in fact the Biblical evidence is not overwhelming. For guidance through the Scriptures use is made of John Stott, a prominent evangelical Anglican.
So what is this Biblical material?
Genesis 19 — The story of the angels visit to Sodom. A reading of the story makes it clear that on its own it is not strong enough to have produced the word “sodomy”, particularly when it is considered that the word traditionally translated “to know” has both sexual and non-sexual connotations. That seems to have resulted from later retelling of the story and Rabbinic teaching about it. Such can be found in the apocyphal Jewish sources. There is also a parallel story in Judges 19, with subtle differences which should probably be read alongside. Reading carefully Genesis 19 with these thoughts in mind, it is not clear what the sin was —
Was it the invasion of Lot’s privacy?
Was it the possibility of homosexual acts?
if it was the last would we be equally unhappy with the “group sex” aspects? If they had accepted the offer of Lot’s daughter, would it have been better?
Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13 — Isolated sayings which appear to rule out homosexual practice. Others suggest that these should be read in the context of fertility cults and temple prostitution; and that these verses have more to do with detestation of idolatry than homosexuality.
Romans 1 — Paul’s tirade is predominantly a tirade against idolatry, and homosexuality is listed as one of the consequences of human rejection of God. One caveat is that Paul is clearly writing about promiscious behaviour rather than homosexual partnership. The second concerns Paul’s appeal to what is natural; he writes about those who have “exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.” What is the natural relation for the exclusively homosexual male?
1 Cor 6. 9–10 and 1 Tim 1. 9–10 — In Both cases homosexuality occurs in lists which either exclude from the kingdom or are incompatible with the gospel. Arguments about the precise Greek words suggest that the probable prohibition was to do with homosexual prostitution, especially of young men.
Admitting that these four groups are the sum total of Biblical material, John Stott concludes this section of his argument thus:- “Must we concede that these four references constitute a rather flimsy basis on which to take a firm stand against the homosexual life-style? Are those protagonists right who claim that the biblical prohibitions are highly specific — against violations of hospitality (Sodom), against cultic taboos (Lev), against shameless orgies (Romans) and against prostitution or corruption of the young (1 Cor and Tim 1), and that none of these passages alludes to,let alone condemns, a loving partnership between genuine homosexual inverts?”
Stott goes on to his own positive basis for rejecting homosexual practice which he bases on Genesis 1 or 2, which he believes expresses God’s for human beings as heterosexual marriage. The key verse is also quoted by Jesus “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one.”
While I would be the last person to argue against heterosexual marriage, it is doubtful whether one can build an entire doctrine of sexuality on such slight material; especially to make that doctrine an exclusive one.
There is much else that could be written on this subject; much already has been. These thoughts are offered to help you begin to think through the issue-one which matters a great deal in the University. IF you want to make the Bible your basis, you may conclude that the evidence is either very slight — or very strong. IF you want a definitive statement from the Church, you’ll be disappointed. IF you want to base morality solely on the supreme distillation of Biblical teaching, Jesus’ command to love God and neighbour, then you’ll have to work through the issue from first principles.
Whatever you decide to do, DON’T JUST ASSUME THERE IS ONLY ONE CHRISTIAN ANSWER. And if you decide on a position ruling out homosexuality, DON’T BE SURPRISED IF OTHERS ARE HURT AND ANGRY.