A Christian Response to Homosexuality

It seems that one of the largest issues splitting the church today is the issue of homosexuality. By “issue” I mean the ordination and marriage of homosexuals. I believe it is also a matter of discrimination, but suffice it to say that discrimination and prejudice is unchristian; even if it is against “sinners.”

I believe that most (if not all) Christians opposed to granting the above mentioned rights to homosexuals do so because they believe marriage and ordination to be Christian institutions that should not include the homosexual lifestyle.

Apparently, to these Christians, if one assumes that homosexuality is a sin, then it would be an abomination to ordain a man or woman who commits sins. Since this is absolutely ridiculous (from a Christian view that all commit sins), I think it would be more appropriate to say that because homosexuals do not view homosexuality as a sin, they must not be Christian and would lead others astray. If this be the case, then I must investigate what makes homosexuality a sin.

Even before I do so, however, it should be noted that no matter how much one views homosexuality as a sin, it is still only a sin. If, therefore, a homosexual commits himself to God and refuses to have relationships with anybody, there should be no objection to ordaining him. The single homosexual is no more sinful than the married preacher. In fact, the single homosexual may even be less sinful than the married preacher, because if the married preacher ever looks at another woman with lust, he is committing adultery against his wife (the homosexual would have no attachment). Therefore, I believe that any Christian against the ordination of homosexuals must at the very least allow the ordination of homosexuals who vow to remain single. If, then, the homosexual pastor wishes to begin a homosexual relationship, they would be stripped of ordination for willingly sinning.

I hope you understand that I do not support the above position, but must state it as I believe the logic of conservative Christians concludes.

Now to the tedious occupation of inquiring of the reasons homosexual actions (I specify actions as opposed to homosexuality in general based on the above paragraph that explains that there is no difference in sinfulness between a single homosexual and a married or single straight pastor) are sinful.

I believe that most (if not all) Christians who believe homosexual actions to be sins do so because of the condemnation of the actions in the Bible. I must emphasize again that the actions may be condemned, but never the state of being. I am unaware of any source aside from the Bible that Christians appeal to for moral guidance. The Bible is the ultimate authority for faith and morals (and to some science and cosmology). Therefore, there is no reason to condemn homosexuality as a sin aside from the Bible as a whole. I will proceed to discuss most passages I am familiar with that are used against the practice of homosexuality.

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

To start with one of the verses most commonly used to condemn homosexuality as a sin, Leviticus 18:22 is a clear condemnation of the act, and states the law that it should not be done. I am not going to argue that this verse does not condemn homosexual activity. What I am going to discuss is the understanding of the prohibition. It should be noted that there is no mention of "sin" or "immorality" in this verse. It is a prohibition just like the prohibition to eat pork. It is not unnatural or morally sinful to eat pork, only forbidden. What makes this prohibition different then? It can be argued that the prohibition to eat pork (and other non-kosher items) do not have to be followed because we are under the new covenant of Jesus, and therefore do not have to keep the law of the Torah (forgive redundancy). Then would that also exempt us from the prohibitions of homosexual activity? I think most would say no, we are still bound to that prohibition. Why then? If one is to say we must abide by the prohibition because of the verse in Romans, then that is using one verse to interpret another, and is not applicable when isolating verses to be studied and understood by themselves for what they are. Therefore, we are left wondering why the prohibition is here in the first place.

If one argues that the prohibition is there because the action is unnatural, then one must also say that heterosexual activity is also unnatural, because the chapter prohibits many acts of heterosexual activity such as intercourse with two women that happen to be sisters, or two women that happen to be mother and daughter, regardless of their familial relationship to you. I don't think many would argue the "unnaturalness" of having sex with two people in the same family, they would at most say it is "morally wrong" or "adulterous." Therefore, the prohibition of homosexual activity cannot be present for any kind of "unnaturalness" of the action.

It should also be stated that there is no reason to believe the impossibility of procreating is a factor for prohibiting the action, since there are no prohibitions for intercourse with infertile or post-menopausal women, and almost every other prohibition in Leviticus 18 could be procreative.

Furthermore, there is no suggestion anywhere that one must not have homosexual desires; they only must not commit the action. In other places, such as the Decalogue, where theft is prohibited, the desire to steal is also prohibited only a few verses later (coveting). When adultery is prohibited in the Decalogue, the desire is prohibited as well. However, when homosexual action is prohibited, there are no prohibitions on homosexual desires.

The prohibition seems to be (from the context) very specific. What I mean is that it may not even be prohibiting all homosexual activity, but only a specific type (i.e. penetration). If this is the case, then the prohibition is not directed towards kissing, fondling, or any type of action aside from lying with a man as one would with a woman.

The prohibition is also directed towards men alone, and not women. There is no way around this fact. The prohibition is not prohibiting all homosexual action, but only male homosexual action. It does not mention anything having to do with "the same gender," but only that a man should not lie with another man as he would with a woman.

How are we to then understand the prohibition? An excellent article by Martin Samuel Cohen (from which I am framing much of this response) concludes that the prohibition is based on the understanding of semen; more specifically, the proper uses of the substance. This is why there are no prohibitions of lesbianism or other homosexual desires or actions that would not result in the misuse of semen.

Cohen steps back from the discussion to first describe the Israelite practice of categorizing everything. Clean from unclean, pure from impure, light from dark, but most importantly, life from death. The Lord is the God of Life, and death is very taboo. There is nothing that can make one unclean in the Torah to the extent that a corpse can. The handling of a corpse is very important. Everything falls into a category of living, dead, or inanimate. Blood and semen are not alive, but they are what cause life, so are they really inanimate? They do not fit neatly into one of the categories so it is vital that the use of the substances is proper. Chapter 11 begins with dietary laws (what is pure, impure, or an abomination). Chapter 12 discusses purity laws about childbirth, chapters 13 and 14 discus lepers and purification. Chapter 15 begins laws of sexual natures, and chapters 16 and 17 discus the Day of Atonement. Then chapter 18 goes back to sexual matters. What can be noticed in the rhythm of the book of Leviticus is the order in which the author discusses laws. First in chapter 11, purity and impurity of food is discussed. Then childbirth, then lepers, but when it gets to chapter 15, the author begins to discuss the "twin stuffs of life" (blood and semen). Beginning with involuntary emissions of semen (chapter 15) and then moving to voluntary intercourse with a woman with different types of menstrual discharges (which are involuntary), it moves to blood in the use of the Day of Atonement (voluntary use of blood). It then orderly enough discusses in chapter 18 misuse of voluntary emissions of semen. There are a few categories to divide handling semen, there are cases that do not render the parties impure, cases that they do, and then cases that are forbidden because they "transcend the laws of purity." Purity, not morality, is the issue. When a man rapes a little boy, the boy is to be put to death as well as the man (Leviticus 20:13); Israel is eradicating the uncleanliness, not correcting an immorality.

These prohibitions, then, in chapter 18 are specifically describing improper uses of semen. This explains why the only prohibition against women is bestiality (where the semen of the male animal who doesn't know any better is misused), and why other sexual prohibitions (such as rape or sexual relationships between priests or prostitutes) do not appear in this chapter. Furthermore, the prohibition against offering zera' (seed) to Molech can more clearly be understood as possibly a reference to an obscure practice of offering semen to a pagan deity. Zera' is most primarily translated "seed" (semen) but secondarily "offspring." There is little connection to any part of the passage if it means "offspring," but makes much sense if understood as "semen" and maintains the continuity of the passage, leading then into the prohibition of a specific homosexual action.

Finally, I must address the use of the noun "abomination" and what it means generally. Coming from the verb "abhor" it means something despicable or hated. That seems obvious. However, why is it used sometimes, and not other times? To say that it is used in this verse because homosexuality is so much worse than any other prohibition that it deserves the word is in my opinion irresponsible interpretation. Other instances that the word "abomination" is used are eating a sacrifice on the third day (Leviticus 7:18), eating certain birds (Leviticus 11:13), or as referring broadly to prohibitions (Leviticus 18:24-30). The key to interpreting the term is to understanding the previously mentioned idea of separation and categorization of everything into clean/unclean, pure/impure, holy/unholy divisions. To blur these lines is an abomination. It must not be thought that these categories are moral/immoral categories. They are not. I don't think that anybody would say that eating a buzzard is immoral (unless one is of the opinion that eating any animal is immoral), but it was forbidden in Leviticus because for whatever reason, it was deemed unclean. To eat it then, would be an abomination. Other abominations recorded in the Bible refer to doing things that other nations do, therefore mixing Israel (a holy nation to be divided from the rest) with other nations, such as King Manasseh (2 Kings 21:11), King Solomon (2 Kings 23:13), or the things that Josiah reformed (2 Kings 23:24, 2 Chronicles 34:33). Leviticus 18 opens with the Lord's command to not do the things they do in Egypt, in order that they may be separate. Abomination is blurring those lines of separation of the nations (2 Chronicles 36:14). It is therefore not a label for something "really bad," it is only a label of an intermingling between things that should not be intermingling, for whatever reason that may be. This is why rape and murder are not called abominations; they do not blur the lines of separation; it is not that they are "less sinful."

It is therefore my conclusion that this verse is not a blanket condemnation of all homosexuality (as many Christians wish it were), but only a condemnation of a specific act because of the ancient view of semen. Therefore, this verse is irrelevant to today's world where we see no problem in eating birds. More directly, unless Christians take on the ancient world view of separation of everything into cleanliness/uncleanliness, pure/impure, and holy/unholy, we have no right in isolating one aspect of that view (the improper use of semen) and exploiting a verse out of context in order to defend our prejudice.

Leviticus 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.

This verse can be explained in the same way Leviticus 18:22 has been above. I do not need to say the same thing again. Suffice it to say that this passage is also talking about the improper use of semen, as the chapter opens with harsh condemnation of offering one's zera' to Molech, and the only prohibition against women in the passage being bestiality.

1 Kings 14:24 – there were also male temple prostitutes in the land. They committed all the abominations of the nations that the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.

First, as a point of grammar, there is no reason to say specifically from this verse that male prostitutes were homosexual. The passage overall is talking about the actions of Judah, and when the collective pronoun "they" is used in this verse it is proper to interpret it as referring to all of Judah (as the context makes clear), and not the temple prostitutes specifically. It is therefore not the male temple prostitutes that are the ones committing abominations, but the whole of Judah.

Romans 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.

It is my belief that this is the strongest verse to argue that homosexuality is immoral. Paul is introducing his argument that all men need grace. His point is that man chose to worship the created and not the creator. In doing so, all Hell broke loose, and you have Romans 1:26-32. There are a couple of things that need to be said about this passage. The homosexuality of Paul's day and the homosexuality of today is very different. Though the act may be the same, the lifestyle is radically different. Where as the context of Leviticus 18:22 implied a very specific action, the context of Romans 1:27 implies lifestyle. Paul does not seem to be condemning a single act, but a whole manner of living and thinking; one that is void of God. Therefore, I believe that given the difference between what Paul was actually condemning and what we 2000 years later like to say he was condemning, it is irresponsible to rest on this verse.

Homosexuality in Paul's day was just not the same. A common practice (and most likely the practice that Paul was familiar with and condemning) in ancient Greco-Roman society (as reflected in other ancient literature) was that boys would go under somewhat of an apprenticeship to an older man to transition the boy from boyhood to manhood. This often was of a sexual nature. This was completely accepted in culture. The boy, then, when maturing, would go on to have a wife and children, and then perhaps one day take on an apprentice of his own to guide into manhood. This is obviously nothing like the homosexual lifestyle today. We do not know if Paul would have had the same opinion of today's homosexuality as he had of his day. Furthermore, the homosexuality Paul was likely condemning appears to be much more of a choice than homosexuals today. Homosexuals today often grow up thinking that they are going to be heterosexual, and then realize over a time that they are not, and then perhaps after years of guilt (or none), they accept their condition (I use the term in no demeaning way). The ancient Greco-Roman homosexuality was a willful fling of sorts that was performed by otherwise heterosexual men intending to live a heterosexual life. To completely ignore the difference and condemn it all as the same is irresponsible.

I must add an amendment to this as well. Given the difference between first century pagan homosexual actions and modern homosexuals, I must say that Paul seemed to be condemning the unnaturalness of the actions, and not the actions themselves. To be more specific, Greek homosexual actions were done by homosexuals, so the "unnaturalness" that Paul is condemning in his letter to the Romans is really the act of heterosexuals doing homosexual actions, not natural homosexuals. This is another reason why I believe it is irresponsible to apply Paul's admonitions to contemporary culture.

I must also discuss briefly Sodom and Gomorrah. They were not destroyed because the people were homosexual. Genesis 19 records the event of the men wishing to rape the guests (literally to "know"), but homosexuality is an irresponsible label of the sin of the people. Deuteronomy 29:23 mentions the destruction of Sodom when the subject is rejecting the Lord's covenant. Isaiah 1 discusses Sodom and Gomorrah when condemning sacrifices being brought to God with the wrong motivation. Jeremiah 23:14 is condemning false prophets of Jerusalem. Lamentations 4:6 says the punishment Jerusalem received was greater than the punishment Sodom received. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom when discussing turning away from God's covenant. Jesus referred to Sodom when discussing the mission of the Twelve to other cities. If the cities do not receive them, the punishment will be worse than that of Sodom. I see no evidence to claim that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were homosexuals. If, in fact, all the men of the town were homosexual (Genesis 19:4 records "all the people to the last man"), the town would not have any population in the first place.

Finally, aside from Biblical discussion, one must ask the question "Is homosexuality a choice?" My opinion is that the actions are just as much a choice as heterosexual actions, but the orientation is not. I am not a scientist, and I find that most Christians who condemn homosexuality are not either, and yet they feel like they have a right to say that sexual orientation is a choice. I think the burden lies on them to provide the proof that they could change their orientation if they wanted to. I am a heterosexual male, and I believe that it would be extremely difficult (and unpleasant) to change my orientation. At the very most, it is possible that I could complete a homosexual act, but then revert entirely to my heterosexual orientation. I think that most heterosexuals would have a similar opinion. Therefore, I think it is unfair to claim that homosexuals should just be able to change their orientation at will. Or, I think it is unfair to claim that they really aren't homosexual, they just think they are. If someone told me I was really homosexual and only pretending to be heterosexual, they would be wrong. So how does anyone have the right to say that to homosexuals?

Back to the science of it, Christians will often say that there is absolutely no scientific proof that homosexuality is an orientation that cannot be helped. This is absolutely correct. But, it would be incorrect to say that scientific discoveries conclude that orientation is chosen. Experiment after experiment (such as testing arousal to the scent of hormones of specific genders, measuring finger lengths, or testing reflexes) show physical differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. This is not proof, but it is irresponsible (and unscientific) to take these conclusions and claim that there is no science behind the opinion. Something that gets tossed around is that if sexual orientation was genetic, then wouldn't all biological twins have the same orientation? Since that is not the case, that must be proof that orientation has nothing to do with biology, right? Not quite so. It just so happens (forgive me for not being able to cite my source right now, but at a later time if questioned I will find it for you) that if one twin is homosexual, the percentage that the other twin is as well is upwards of 40-50%. Considering that only about 2-10% of the general population is homosexual, that up to half of the siblings of homosexual people are also homosexual is worth noting. This (I believe if my memory serves me correctly) is also true in situations where the twins were raised in separate environments (such as being adopted into different families). Here it can be seen how claims that there is no "science" behind homosexuality can get by. If that percentage of 50 would go up to 99%, a conservative Christian (with his or her mind already made up) can say "Science does not have any proof whatsoever that genetics determine orientation." However, that statement is irresponsible given the evidence (not proof) that exists. Therefore, I say, let the scientists do what they do and be scientists, and let us not impose our opinions on their conclusions. It has, however, been said that even if it were biological, it would only go to show how deep our sinful nature has gone. I think that this is (even if unintentionally) cruel. I don't personally believe that God would have somebody made biologically unable to live a Christian life. Our sin nature may be deep in our soul and mind, but I do not believe it to be in our body.

I speak as an amateur biblical theologian and scholar, not as a scientist, and as I have explained above, I have little problem with homosexuality. The problem I have is with "Christians" who condemn homosexuals. The claim that they are "just being biblical" is nonsense in my opinion. How often does the Bible mention homosexuality? Somewhere around the vicinity of six times. How many times does Jesus mention homosexuality? Somewhere around the vicinity of none. Why then is there any emphasis at all on the condemnation of it, when the condemnation of it is based on irresponsible biblical exegesis? I think as Christians we should condemn not homosexuality, but the condemnation of homosexuality. Homosexuals get made fun of, they are outcast, they are stereotyped, they are discriminated against, they are hated, they are accused, and they are even beaten and murdered for being homosexual. This is what I believe as Christians we should be fighting against. The Bible talks a lot more about loving outsiders and not condemning or mocking than it does about homosexuality (for that matter, Jesus' statement on divorce is stronger and clearer than any condemnation of homosexuality). But "Christians" so often think it is their duty or something to mock and condemn the homosexual. What sickens me the most is that some Christians would deny a homosexual membership (or even attendance) to their church. This is an outrage. That some "Christians" would dare say that the grace of God is not going to be bestowed upon a homosexual.

My conclusion, as I hope is obvious by now, is that I believe heterosexuality and homosexuality to be the same as being right or left handed. I believe that it is only through misunderstanding and misapplication of Scripture that Christians have the illusion of a foundation for their discrimination, and that though not all Christians are as malicious as those I am infuriated at I am disappointed in my fellows of faith for not standing up to the real abomination of society: Hate towards people different than themselves.