The biblical position on homosexuality has been particularly polemical in recent public discourse. People are asking the honest question -- what does the Bible actually have to say about homosexuality? Answers are often glib and unresearched -- "the Bible says nothing about homosexuality" or "the Bible says God hates gays," for example. Answers like these are often given by people who have little understanding of the scriptural texts and even less desire to study them academically.
In the March 16 issue, Natawnee J. Fritz offered an answer of her own. In her viewpoint ("Scripture outdated on homosexuality"), Fritz argued that scholarly hermeneutics are essential for the proper understanding of the scriptural texts. In this, Fritz was correct; we cannot approach the Scriptures without academic diligence or research. Unfortunately, Fritz showed a disappointing lack of academic rigor, resorting to awkward manipulations of the biblical texts in a clear effort to demonstrate support for her a priori belief that homosexuality is morally acceptable.
How then do we respond to those who do not wish to justify their own beliefs, but instead wish to understand the actual meaning of the authors' writings? I am confident that by employing sound principles of historico-cultural exegesis and academic honesty, we will find that the Bible's position on homosexuality becomes clear. Let's look at some of the relevant texts from the Levitical Law:
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable [or, 'an abomination']." (Lev. 18:22)
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable [or, 'an abomination']." (Lev. 20:13)
Without further investigation, these passages seem to roundly condemn homosexual practice. Some revisionist biblical scholars claim, however, that this prima facie judgment is misguided. Such scholars make much of the fact that the Hebrew word, toeva, translated "an abomination" in these passages, is often associated with the condemnation of idolatry throughout the Old Testament Scriptures. Because of this, the passages above are interpreted as condemnations of homosexual practice only in the context of idolatry.
This position is untenable for the serious academic, however. In verse 29 of chapter 18, the Hebrew word toeva is used as a blanket term of condemnation in reference to such sins as incest, adultery, bestiality, and child sacrifice. Are we then to assume that these practices, like homosexuality, are acceptable so long as they are performed outside of the context of idolatry? Moreover, revisionist theologians neglect the fact that the word toeva is used, for example, in Proverbs 6:16-19 to condemn such sins as lying, murder, and pride -- actions in which express idolatry plays no part. We must concede that the scriptural context demands that we interpret toeva as a condemnation of acts which are intrinsically immoral, and not simply due to their affiliation with idolatry.
At this point, the progressive theologian may argue: "Well, you don't enforce the Levitical law prohibiting men from clipping the sides of their beards; why are you so dogmatic in your condemnation of homosexual practice?" It is true that Christians do not enforce many of the Levitical commands in light of the fact that Scripture itself testifies that these laws were temporary in nature, signs or "shadows" pointing to the fulfillment in Christ. "Perhaps the Levitical condemnation of homosexuality was also temporary in nature," suggests the revisionist. This argument eventually falls flat, however, in light of the New Testament's repeated reaffirmations of the Levitical condemnations of homosexual practice. Let's look at an example from the first chapter of Romans:
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (Rom. 1:26-27)
In Paul's description of fallen humanity throughout the book of Romans, he seems to cite homosexual practice as symptomatic of this fallen state. In response, Fritz et al. challenge the assumption that Paul is here writing about homosexuality as we know it today. The "indecent acts" referred to are suggested to be either some form of pederasty or a heterosexual's willful rebellion against his or her own natural orientation by engaging in homosexual activity.
These claims do not stand up to scrutiny, however. Paul is clearly not simply referring to pederasty, as homosexual acts between women (for which the suggestion of boy-love cannot apply) are presented here as analogously immoral. The claim that Paul is referring to heterosexuals "experimenting" against their natural sexual orientation is equally mistaken. This view, invented by Derrick Sherwin Bailey in 1955 in his book, Homosexuality and the Western Tradition, now finds virtually no support among New Testament scholars of any merit. There is nothing in the wording of this passage that implies Paul is making any distinction between "true" and "false" homosexuals.
Moreover, the very fact that Paul refers to men being "inflamed with lust" for one another makes it improbable that he is speaking of heterosexuals acting against their own natural impulses. If acting against "natural" impulses is what Paul is condemning here, should we then assume that envy, murder, deceit, and malice (referred to in v. 29) are similarly acceptable so long as the person committing them feels a "natural" impulse to do so?
The claim that Paul was unaware of consensual homosexual relationships as we know them today is, unfortunately, historically myopic. As theologian Dr. Gordon Hugenberger writes on the subject, "Since Paul was as well-educated and well-read as he was... he would have been quite familiar with the vast homosexual literature of the Hellenistic world in which tender, committed, nurturing homoerotic love was celebrated. No doubt, he would have known of Emperor Nero's own homosexual marriage to Sporus. Since Paul ministered for a length of time in Corinth, he may well have known first hand of many other homosexual marriages. Despite all of this, at no point does Paul say even the slightest positive thing about homosexual practice. Instead, every time he addresses it, he rejects it as an option for Christians."
In light of the overwhelming evidence, we must conclude that the Scriptures here explicitly condemn all forms of homosexual practice.
I have nothing personally invested in claiming homosexual practice is morally wrong. However, as both a Christian and an academic, I am very interested in the actual meaning of the Scriptures. For the sake of brevity, I have only made a cursory examination of a few of the relevant passages. Nevertheless, in the case of the Bible's stance on homosexuality, research and academic honesty compel me to conclude that it clearly condemns all homosexual practice as immoral.
You may say that the Scriptures are nothing but a collection of the writings of men, that they are sexist, racist, or homophobic -- but at least for the sake of academic honesty, do not undermine their claims by manipulating them to justify your own preconceived ideologies.
Paul Johnson is a senior majoring in English.
