You’ve safely arrived at the new digs of SisterFriends Together, a new day and direction in the life of christianlesbians.com. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the world of blogging then give me a couple paragraphs to pass along some basic info before you wander off on your own and get into all kinds of trouble. I know the bright shiny objects are tempting but stay with me you adorable little Blog Babies!

This little blimp of text is called a blog entry. When a new entry is posted it will go right here and then move down the page as newer entries are added. To keep up on new content, you can either come back here every couple days for a look-see or you can subscribe to the RSS feed or request that new content be emailed to you. Subscription links to both of these are at the top of the far right hand column.

Across the top of the page under the masthead (also known as the narrow pretty picture) is the Navigation Bar. The links on the navigation bar provide basic content to SisterFriends Together. Categories in the nearest right hand column is like the table of contents for the blog and is how all entries are listed by general topics. Clicking on any category heading will make all the relevant entries with abbreviated content appear and if one of those grabs your interest just click on the entry title and the entire post will appear. As of this entry most of the entries are content that was transferred over here from christianlesbians.com and to keep them separate from new content I’ve listed them under January 2006 in the Archives. Anything appearing after January 2006 is either new content or old content that’s gone through major revisions.

The last thing I want to introduce to you Blog Babies is the Comment feature. If you look at the bottom of each entry you’ll see a narrow box that lists the categories the entry is under and a comments link. Click that link and a comment box will open up where you can add your witty and brilliantly insightful thoughts. One of the reasons we went to a blog format is that the old website format was too one-sided and passive. In other words, I’d talk and you’d listen. Class dismissed. With this blog format me or a guest blogger will get the topic started and then anyone else can jump in and add their own thoughts and that’s where the real conversation and interaction begins! Please be aware that all comments will be held for approval before posting to avoid SPAM and creeps (in no particular order) and all comments will be viewable to any and all who stop by so consider that if anonymity is a concern for you.

Okay, I’m done. Now go look around and let me know what you think.

We are conservative. We are progressive. We are evangelical. We are liberal. We are seeking, searching and emerging. We have found the Answer. We are content to live in the questions.

We light candles and sing Georgian chants in the scented haze of burning incense. We sing “Amazing Grace” and weep as we do. We lift our hands in worship. We hold our hands in silent meditation. We dance down the aisles. We genuflect before the cross. The walls of our church are brick and glass. The walls of our church are mighty oak trees and endless blue sky.

We celebrate Eucharist. We receive communion. We come to Christ’s Table. Once a month. Every Sunday. Paper thin wafer. Chunk of earthy bread. Cup of sweet grape juice. Chalice of dry red wine. We sip. We dip. We have a baptistry. We have a font. We dunk. We sprinkle. We all wade into the deep swirling waters of Spirit and Mystery and God Most Divine.

We call God Heavenly Father. We call God Heavenly Mother. He. She. We come to God as Creator, Redeemer, Friend, Source of All Being, Holy Spirit, Indescribable One. Alpha. Omega. Mystery. Name Above All Names. God Above All Gods. I Am.

Just as diverse as our styles of worship, the places where we worship, and our attempts at naming God, is our theology. I believe this. You believe that. On some things we will agree. On many things we never will.

We are seeking to know God ever more. We are falling, ever falling, more in love with Christ. We are committed to living authentic lives, transparent lives, faithful lives, made in the image of God, committed to the purpose of God. We are passionate. We are opinionated. We are strong and we are devoted to searching, seeking, growing, following, changing, obeying, transforming, and living for and to the Glory of God and to the Risen Christ, God’s Son.

We are equal in faith, equal before God. We are no more wise in understanding, no nearer to God, no more privy to God’s Spirit speaking than the one who stands beside us or the one who stands against us. We believe what we believe because it is what seems most true to each of us. And yet, at times we might be wrong or they might be wrong or you might be wrong. Or maybe, just maybe, collectively together we could be closer to the truth that we could ever be on our own, as we glimpse the same thing from different places, putting together the pieces of something bigger than any of us alone can grasp. We can teach one another. We can learn from one another.

The same spirit of Christ that dwells in us, dwells in you. It is Christ that unites us. It is to unity in Christ to which we will default. When our differences begin to splinter us, let the grace of God, the love of Christ, and the unity of the Holy Spirit bind us inseparably. In this we pray. In this we believe. To this we commit ourselves.

Amen.

When I wrote that phrase some time ago and as I write this post today I’m thinking of you who believe there’s no such thing as a “Christian lesbian.” You consider the term to be a contradiction of terms but more than that, you regard it an offense to the Gospel. You believe if someone identifies as a Christian they would seek repentance from homosexuality and would do all they could to change and short of change they would at least commit to not “practicing” homosexuality.

I also have those of you in mind who, even while doubting such a thing as a “Christian lesbian” exists have haltingly admitted to yourself that while you love Christ and are committed to the Christian life, your desire for an intimate and loving relationship is with another woman. Because of this apparent conflict you feel as though there’s a choice you’ll have to eventually make, to either walk away from your faith in God or deny, reject, or attempt to change your attraction to other women.

Whether paragraph one or paragraph two best describes where you stand, I’m writing as someone who knows your position because at one time I was you. For much of my life I believed homosexuality was a sin that led good people astray from a true faith in God. I watched Christian talk shows and gave thanks for the those who shared stories of deliverance from the “homosexual lifestyle.” I didn’t hesitate to share my beliefs with college friends who opened up with me about their own struggles with sexuality because I loved them and didn’t want to see them go down a road that would take them so far from where I believed God desired for them to be.

A few years later I was the one engaged in an internal conflict like I’d never known before and that I could never have imagined. My faith in Christ meant everything to me and my greatest longing was to live in a way that brought honor to God but suddenly I recognized my lifelong unnamed feelings as being the very thing that would bring the most disappointment to the heart of God. My fear and shame were so great I told no one and spent my evening hours crying out to God in prayers full of promise. I will change. I will do whatever it takes. I will never do anything to disgrace you. I will die before I do. And prayers of pleading. Please forgive me for whatever I did to make this happen. Change me. Help me. Don’t leave me. Please don’t hate me. In that moment I looked down the path of my future and saw nothing good.

I really have been there. I really have said and done and felt that but no longer does paragraph one or paragraph two represent who I am or what I believe. I stand in another place about both pieces of my life, as one who is a Christian and a lesbian.

1. I am a Christian.

There was a time in my life when I made the intentional decision to say yes to a relationship with God through Christ by recognizing that it was through Jesus’ life, death and resurrection that God’s saving presence entered into the world. I was a child when I first said yes and even though on my best day I live out my yes imperfectly I choose again and again to say yes each day of my life. Yes, I love God above all else. Yes, I will follow after God’s will. Yes, I will seek to love others as Christ loved. Yes, I will be the grace of God in the world.

I’m not a Christian out of my own righteousness but by the righteousness of God and the completed work of Christ given freely to all. ( John 11:25, John 5:24, John 20:31, Romans 1:16, Ephesians 2:8,9 and Colossians 1:21-23). Salvation hinges on nothing else; not adherence to church tradition or believing in doctrines or creeds. The assurance of my faith is grounded in Christ and Christ alone and to add conditions or requirements onto that reality is to imply that the death and resurrection of Jesus was insufficient, that Jesus was wrong when he said from the cross “It is finished.” While a church might say “Believe as we believe and do as we do and you may join us here” Jesus welcomes all based on nothing other than the love and grace of God.

2. I am a lesbian.

While I remember the very place and time when at the age of five I became a Christian, there was never a single moment when I made a conscious choice to be a lesbian and I always take it with a mix of mild amusement and irritation that some people will argue it was a choice. It’s amazing and yes, exasperating at times, that people who don’t know me or other GLBTQ people personally would be so presumptuous as to assume they know the reality of our lives more than we do.

My Beloved and I have been together for nearly nine years. We were married in a church filled with friends and in the presence of God. There’s nothing about our life together that would look strange or odd were the one I love a man and our relationship heterosexual. I cook breakfast. She makes the bed. We shower, dress and go to work. During the day we call each other to express our love or to remind the other to pick up more milk on the way home. After the dinner dishes are put away, we watch television or play with the kittens or putter around the house until bedtime when we fall asleep beside the other. There’s nothing bizarre about our life. Nothing unusual. While some would even consider our lives boring I treasure each day as an amazing and joyful blessing.

And yet, there’s something very different about being a lesbian in this world. Being lesbian means knowing that in certain parts of the world you can’t hold your partner’s hand in public as straight couples do without risking being ridiculed, physically assaulted, or imprisoned. Being lesbian means picking up the paper every morning or watching the news every night to hear about some new legislation that’s being debated that if passed would negatively impact your life. Being lesbian means listening to false stereotypes being painted about you and the people you love every Sunday morning by television evangelists, all in the name of God. Being lesbian means trying to explain the nonexistence of the homosexual lifestyle and the gay agenda to strangers.

But being lesbian means even more. Being lesbian means celebrating the joy of being a woman. Being lesbian means giving full expression to the depth of the love within you. Being lesbian means living confidently with God’s approval rather than with the approval of others. Being a lesbian means standing in solidarity with others who stand on the outside whether they be the poor, the sick, the elderly, or any among God’s creation deemed not acceptable by the majority. Being lesbian means finding your courage and living boldly. Being lesbian means experiencing another woman’s courage when she takes your hand in a roomful of strangers or shows her wedding ring proudly without embarrassment or thought to what others will think.

I am a Christian. That’s my faith. I am a lesbian. That’s my sexual orientation. I make no apology for being either and if after all is said and done I remain a contradiction to some folks then that’s the way it will be. I can’t prevent someone from rejecting the presence of God in my life, or calling the love between my partner and I perverted, or even denying the sufficiency of salvation through faith by requiring I be heterosexual to receive it. In the same way no one has the power to remove the confidence I have in God, or diminish the quality of love I’ve been graced to share with my Beloved, or say or do anything that will separate me from the love of God I have in Christ Jesus.

I love being a Christian and I love being a lesbian because for me it’s about living a life of wholeness and gratitude for all that God has done through Christ and for all that God is doing in me.

My personal story has gone through a series of revisions since the summer of 1995 when I posted it for the first time on a free home page hidden somewhere in the dusty recesses of the internet. I was just HTML literate enough to create a rudimentary website where I could share my story, only months after coming out myself. With far too many words, weighed down in details that added nothing and side roads that led everywhere and nowhere, I was trying to explain how in my dark night of the soul, God had proven to be endlessly faithful, unconditionally loving, and far more compassionate than I had ever before experienced. No longer was God’s unconditional love and amazing grace something I believed in because I had been taught of them in Sunday school or sung their hymns among the congregation but because I had run smack dab into them in the messiness of my own life. Isolated in my own turmoil I had never been less alone. Fearing and then confronting rejection and misunderstanding from all those I loved, I fell safely into the assuring embrace of God. Confronted with a world turned upside down and the future more uncertain than I had ever imagined it to be, I was at peace in Christ for that day and for all those that followed. Whatever would unfold, whoever would leave me, whatever doors would close, I’d be okay, much more than okay, because I was God’s own. When I wrote my story the first time it wasn’t about coming out as a lesbian in a grand and public way, but about sharing my faith in God through Christ, faith in the God of Jesus who is nothing if not grace and love.

And now as I head into the newest revision, my purpose in sharing my story remains the same. I want you who are reading my story to have hope for your own life; to trust the voice of God’s Spirit that’s more than able to speak to you and lead you; to find comfort in the life of Jesus who was a friend, without exception, to everyone pushed to the margins and oppressed by religious leaders and society, and to take courage that whatever you have faced or will face in the future, God is beside you and will be sufficient in grace and mercy to see you through. With that, let me tell you my story of coming out as a Christian lesbian…

As you already know my name’s Anita and I’m the youngest of four children. As I was growing up my parents weren’t perfect parents and surprisingly enough I wasn’t a perfect daughter, yet despite the mistakes we made in our parent-child relationship our love for each other was never in question. In addition to their love of family, my parents love and commitment to Christ and to the church was evident to all, both in the public arena and behind the private walls of our own home. There’s no question that in their modeling of the Christian life they influenced my own passion for God. They grounded me in the Christian faith as a child and as an adult it remains the faith I continue to choose for my own each day.

From my earliest childhood through my youth I knew I wanted nothing more than to go into Christian ministry; to pastor and care for God’s people and to bring the Good News of Christ into the world, and so, at the age of twenty-two I graduated from Bible college and immediately entered into full-time ministry within a congregation where I served for eighteen years.

Through my twenties and most of my thirties I had never given much thought to marriage though I hoped one day to have a family, children, and to share my life with another. I dated a few men and while I loved the idea of being in love I was never physically or emotionally attracted to the men themselves. I cared deeply for each, for who they were as individuals but never was I in love with any of them. There was a connection with them I couldn’t find despite how close we became or how much I loved them as a friend. Looking back, I didn’t think it particularly odd that a relationship wasn’t happening for me because my situation wasn’t so unusual among the women I knew in ministry. Most of my time and energy was being directed toward church life and so I had little time to devote to a relationship and the work so rewarding and people-focused that I seldom felt a need for deeper intimacy and connection.

As the years passed, I found myself pastoring in full-time ministry in a position that provided me with incredible opportunities among people I deeply loved working along side. I was doing the very thing I had always wanted to do and I loved it. I had developed an amazing circle of friends, a wonderful family, and had a nice home. And yet, even while my life was really good, there was something underneath that felt incomplete or missing from my life that I couldn’t name. I felt like there was something I didn’t know and if I were to know what it was then everything else would fall in place.

In response to these continuing feelings there came a time around the age of thirty-six when I began to pray nightly that God would either bring completeness in my life or show me what it was that I needed to do to change or adjust to whatever was going on within me. Months passed like this and then one evening I went to bed with this same prayer in my heart and the next morning upon waking I sat up in bed and had the immediate awareness that the something I hadn’t known was that I was a lesbian. I know this sounds extraordinary or difficult to accept as true but the possibility that I was a lesbian had never been a thought to which I’d given a moment’s consideration up until that morning. The idea I could be gay was absolutely inconceivable to me so great was my self-denial and it took a lightening bolt from seemingly nowhere to wake me up to the reality of my sexual orientation. In that single moment of awakening I experienced an indescribable conflict of emotions, located somewhere in that wide space between peace and terror. I felt immediate peace that this was the missing piece of my life and in that moment it fell into place even while in the breath terror swept over me as I realized I was just claiming something to be true of me that I knew was an abomination to the God I loved.

In the coming weeks I prayed with my face pressed into the carpet that God would change me and yet I didn’t change. I prayed that God would take my life rather than allow me to do one thing that would bring dishonor to Him and still I continued to live. I prayed that God would give me a call to celibacy so that I would never enter into a gay relationship but in my heart I continually longed to share my life with another person. Though I was raised on the Bible I had never studied homosexuality within the biblical text. It had always been enough that church leaders and those I respected in the Christian faith said it was sin. I had no reason to believe otherwise, and now as I came to the Scriptures I didn’t expect, nor did I want, to uncover anything different. I wanted what I had always been taught about homosexuality to be confirmed because the simple truth was I didn’t want to be gay. I knew what it would mean in terms of my ministry within a conservative Christian denomination. I knew there would be a loss of friendships. I knew it would dramatically impact my relationship with family members. I didn’t want my world to turn upside down. The price was too high and I didn’t want to pay it and so I opened the Scriptures to be assured of the sinful nature of being gay and when that happened I would then do whatever it would take and seek help wherever it could be found to reject these new and confusing feelings.

And so I opened the Scriptures and began to read the few passages that were referred to in conversations around homosexuality and as I read I found more questions than answers. There was undeniably a negative attitude expressed about homosexuality but nothing I was reading, the behaviors or situations described anything that resembled who I was or the life I was living. I couldn’t make myself fit into the story of Sodom or those who Paul described in the first chapter of Romans, and so I went to other passages in the Psalms, the Gospels, and the writings of Paul. Passages that were familiar to me; passages that had guided and challenged and comforted me all my life. And as I read them, I found my story there. These were the passages that included me, that described my life, my heart, and my relationship with God. And as I came to the end of Psalm 139, a psalm of assurance of God’s continuing presence, and of the direct involvement of the Creator of All Things in the details of my life, I prayed the prayer of the Psalmist in closing when he writes, “Search me O God and know my heart. Try me and know my thoughts. See if there be any wicked way in me and lead me in the way everlasting.” Held in the center of that prayer I felt no guilt or shame from an inner conviction pricking at my heart, but only the loving presence and gentle embrace of God’s Spirit.

Only after spending time alone in the Word and in prayer did I turn to several books I’d found at a Christian bookstore on healing from homosexuality but the conclusions they reached regarding the scriptures and homosexuality seemed weak and again, I had found more questions than clarity. I searched the internet and found a selection of stories from Christians who claimed to be delivered from being gay and were self-identifying as ex-gay. I realized within a short tiem that to read one story was to read them all because they all sounded similar with so many common links between them, but none between them and me.

I had sought the answer in the Scriptures and had listened to voices within the church through the books and stories I read, but none of it brought me closer to a resolve that homosexuality was sin. I was only more confused than ever and so I did what I probably should have done in the first place and that was to turn to God. Yes, I’d prayed before. God had been the very first place I had turned but the first time I went to God it was with a closed heart, certain homosexuality was a sin and only asking that God change me. This time when I prayed it was with a heart open to hearing whatever God would say to me and what I ultimately experienced was assurance and comfort. It was an encounter with God’s Spirit and I came up from my place of prayer that night I knew as certain as I’ve ever known anything that God loved me as I was. I had finally come to a place of wholeness in my life where I could come to God with all of me.

Being gay has nothing to do with my environment, traumatic childhood abuse or neglect, a testing of my faith, punishment from God, the deception of Satan, lustful passions, a hatred for men, or a personal choice on my part. My hair is brown, my eyes are blue, my sexual orientation is gay. I believe my sexuality comes as no surprise to God since God knew my days before I was even fashioned in my mother’s womb. There are some who say being gay is a gift from God and I stand with them. What I first viewed as a curse has been one of the greatest gifts of my life because it’s led me on a journey that’s drawn me closer to God than anything else I have yet to experience in my life.

So I live my life as a Christian Lesbian. I am a Christian because I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Savior of the world. My deepest desire is to live each day by saying and doing those things that would bring honor and praise to Christ and that would witness God’s love to others. That was my desire the day before I realized I was a lesbian and it remains the same to this day. I am a lesbian because I believe this is part of God’s plan for my life and I accept it with gratitude and celebration.

I am many things. A woman, a lesbian, a daughter, a sister, a pastor, a wife, but they all pale in comparison to being a child of God. And that is what I am. So are you.

Sexual issues are tearing our churches apart today as never before. The issue of homosexuality threatens to fracture whole denominations, as the issue of slavery did a hundred and fifty years ago. We naturally turn to the Bible for guidance, and find ourselves mired in interpretative quicksand. Is the Bible able to speak to our confusion on this issue?

The debate over homosexuality is a remarkable opportunity, because it raises in an especially acute way how we interpret the Bible, not in this case only, but in numerous others as well. The real issue here, then, is not simply homosexuality, but how Scripture informs our lives today.

Some passages that have been advanced as pertinent to the issue of homosexuality are, in fact, irrelevant. One is the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-29). That was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them “like women,” thus demasculinizing them. (This is also the case in a similar account in Judges 19-21.) Their brutal behavior has nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between consenting adults of the same sex is legitimate or not. Likewise Deut. 23:17-18 must be pruned from the list, since it most likely refers to a heterosexual prostitute involved in Canaanite fertility rites that have infiltrated Jewish worship; the King James Version inaccurately labeled him a “sodomite.”

Several other texts are ambiguous. It is not clear whether 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 refer to the “passive” and “active” partners in homosexual relationships, or to homosexual and heterosexual male prostitutes. In short, it is unclear whether the issue is homosexuality alone, or promiscuity and “sex-for-hire.”

Unequivocal Condemnations

Putting these texts to the side, we are left with three references, all of which unequivocally condemn homosexual behavior. Lev. 18:22 states the principle: “You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (NRSV). The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: “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.”

Such an act was regarded as an “abomination” for several reasons. The Hebrew prescientific understanding was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence the spilling of semen for any nonprocreative purpose–in coitus interruptus (Gen. 38:1-11), male homosexual acts, or male masturbation–was considered tantamount to abortion or murder. (Female homosexual acts were consequently not so seriously regarded, and are not mentioned at all in the Old Testament (but see Rom. 1:26). One can appreciate how a tribe struggling to populate a country in which its people were outnumbered would value procreation highly, but such values are rendered questionable in a world facing uncontrolled overpopulation.

In addition, when a man acted like a woman sexually, male dignity was compromised. It was a degradation, not only in regard to himself, but for every other male. The patriarchalism of Hebrew culture shows its hand in the very formulation of the commandment, since no similar stricture was formulated to forbid homosexual acts between females. And the repugnance felt toward homosexuality was not just that it was deemed unnatural but also that it was considered unJewish, representing yet one more incursion of pagan civilization into Jewish life. On top of that is the more universal repugnance heterosexuals tend to feel for acts and orientations foreign to them. (Left-handedness has evoked something of the same response in many cultures.)

Whatever the rationale for their formulation, however, the texts leave no room for maneuvering. Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed. This is the unambiguous command of Scripture. The meaning is clear: anyone who wishes to base his or her beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent and demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts. (That may seem extreme, but there actually are some Christians urging this very thing today.) It is unlikely that any American court will ever again condemn a homosexual to death, even though Scripture clearly commands it.

Old Testament texts have to be weighed against the New. Consequently, Paul’s unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Rom. 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece of any discussion.

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.

No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemned were heterosexuals who were acting contrary to nature, “leaving,” “giving up,” or “exchanging” their regular sexual orientation for that which was foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psycho-sexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically in some cases. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature, “leaving,” “giving up” or “exchanging” their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them.

In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were “straight,” and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed that everyone was straight. He had no concept of homosexual orientation. The idea was not available in his world. There are people that are genuinely homosexual by nature (whether genetically or as a result of upbringing no one really knows, and it is irrelevant). For such a person it would be acting contrary to nature to have sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex.

Likewise, the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships between consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple. That was something Paul simply could not envision. Some people assume today that venereal disease and AIDS are divine punishment for homosexual behavior; we know it as a risk involved in promiscuity of every stripe, homosexual and heterosexual. In fact, the vast majority of people with AIDS the world around are heterosexuals. We can scarcely label AIDS a divine punishment, since nonpromiscuous lesbians are at almost no risk.

And Paul believes that homosexual behavior is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially (but not solely) under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be a quite natural mechanism for preserving species. We cannot, of course, decide human ethical conduct solely on the basis of animal behavior or the human sciences, but Paul here is arguing from nature, as he himself says, and new knowledge of what is “natural” is therefore relevant to the case.

Hebrew Sexual Mores

Nevertheless, the Bible quite clearly takes a negative view of homosexual activity, in those few instances where it is mentioned at all. But this conclusion does not solve the problem of how we are to interpret Scripture today. For there are other sexual attitudes, practices and restrictions which are normative in Scripture but which we no longer accept as normative:

1. Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual period (Lev. 18:19; 15:19-24), and anyone in violation was to be “extirpated” or “cut off from their people” (kareth, Lev. 18:29, a term referring to execution by stoning, burning, strangling, or to flogging or expulsion; Lev. 15:24 omits this penalty). Today many people on occasion have intercourse during menstruation and think nothing of it. Should they be “extirpated”? The Bible says they should.

2. The punishment for adultery was death by stoning for both the man and the woman (Deut. 22:22), but here adultery is defined by the marital status of the woman. In the Old Testament, a man could not commit adultery against his own wife; he could only commit adultery against another man by sexually using the other’s wife. And a bride who is found not to be a virgin is to be stoned to death (Deut. 22:13-21), but male virginity at marriage is never even mentioned. It is one of the curiosities of the current debate on sexuality that adultery, which creates far more social havoc, is considered less “sinful” than homosexual activity. Perhaps this is because there are far more adulterers in our churches. Yet no one, to my knowledge, is calling for their stoning, despite the clear command of Scripture. And we ordain adulterers.

3. Nudity, the characteristic of paradise, was regarded in Judaism as reprehensible (2 Sam. 6:20; 10:4; Isa. 20:2-4; 47:3). When one of Noah’s sons beheld his father naked, he was cursed (Gen. 9:20-27). To a great extent this nudity taboo probably even inhibited the sexual intimacy of husbands and wives (this is still true of a surprising number of people reared in the Judeo-Christian tradition). We may not be prepared for nude beaches, but are we prepared to regard nudity in the locker room or at the old swimming hole or in the privacy of one’s home as an accursed sin? The Bible does.

4. Polygamy (many wives) and concubinage (a woman living with a man to whom she is not married) were regularly practiced in the Old Testament. Neither is ever condemned by the New Testament (with the questionable exceptions of 1 Tim. 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6). Jesus’ teaching about marital union in Mark 10:6-8 is no exception, since he quotes Gen. 2:24 as his authority (the man and the woman will become “one flesh”), and this text was never understood in Israel as excluding polygamy. A man could become “one flesh” with more than one woman, through the act of sexual intercourse. We know from Jewish sources that polygamy continued to be practiced within Judaism for centuries following the New Testament period. So if the Bible allowed polygamy and concubinage, why don’t we?

5. A form of polygamy was the levirate marriage. When a married man in Israel died childless, his widow was to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bore him a male heir. Jesus mentions this custom without criticism (Mark 12:18-27 par.). I am not aware of any Christians who still obey this unambiguous commandment of Scripture. Why is this law ignored, and the one against homosexual behavior preserved?

6. The Old Testament nowhere explicitly prohibits sexual relations between unmarried consenting heterosexual adults, as long as the woman’s economic value (bride price) is not compromised, that is to say, as long as she is not a virgin. There are poems in the Song of Songs that eulogize a love affair between two unmarried persons, though commentators have often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation. In various parts of the Christian world, quite different attitudes have prevailed about sexual intercourse before marriage. In some Christian communities, proof of fertility (that is, pregnancy) was required for marriage. This was especially the case in farming areas where the inability to produce children-workers could mean economic hardship. Today, many single adults, the widowed, and the divorced are reverting to “biblical” practice, while others believe that sexual intercourse belongs only within marriage. Both views are Scriptural. Which is right?

7. The Bible virtually lacks terms for the sexual organs, being content with such euphemisms as “foot” or “thigh” for the genitals, and using other euphemisms to describe coitus, such as “he knew her.” Today most of us regard such language as “puritanical” and contrary to a proper regard for the goodness of creation. In short, we don’t follow Biblical practice.

8. Semen and menstrual blood rendered all who touched them unclean (Lev. 15:16-24). Intercourse rendered one unclean until sundown; menstruation rendered the woman unclean for seven days. Today most people would regard semen and menstrual fluid as completely natural and only at times “messy,” not “unclean.”

9. Social regulations regarding adultery, incest, rape and prostitution are, in the Old Testament, determined largely by considerations of the males’ property rights over women. Prostitution was considered quite natural and necessary as a safeguard of the virginity of the unmarried and the property rights of husbands (Gen. 38:12-19; Josh. 2:1-7). A man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, though the prostitute herself was regarded as a sinner. Paul must appeal to reason in attacking prostitution (1 Cor. 6:12-20); he cannot lump it in the category of adultery (vs. 9).

Today we are moving, with great social turbulence and at a high but necessary cost, toward a more equitable, non-patriarchal set of social arrangements in which women are no longer regarded as the chattel of men. We are also trying to move beyond the double standard. Love, fidelity and mutual respect replace property rights. We have, as yet, made very little progress in changing the double standard in regard to prostitution. As we leave behind patriarchal gender relations, what will we do with the patriarchalism in the Bible?

10. Jews were supposed to practice endogamy–that is, marriage within the twelve tribes of Israel. Until recently a similar rule prevailed in the American South, in laws against interracial marriage (miscegenation). We have witnessed, within the lifetime of many of us, the nonviolent struggle to nullify state laws against intermarriage and the gradual change in social attitudes toward interracial relationships. Sexual mores can alter quite radically even in a single lifetime.

11. The law of Moses allowed for divorce (Deut. 24:1-4); Jesus categorically forbids it (Mark 10:1-12; Matt. 19:9 softens his severity). Yet many Christians, in clear violation of a command of Jesus, have been divorced. Why, then, do some of these very people consider themselves eligible for baptism, church membership, communion, and ordination, but not homosexuals? What makes the one so much greater a sin than the other, especially considering the fact that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?

12. The Old Testament regarded celibacy as abnormal, and 1 Tim. 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy. Yet the Catholic Church has made it mandatory for priests and nuns. Some Christian ethicists demand celibacy of homosexuals, whether they have a vocation for celibacy or not. But this legislates celibacy by category, not by divine calling. Others argue that since God made men and women for each other in order to be fruitful and multiply, homosexuals reject God’s intent in creation. But this would mean that childless couples, single persons, priests and nuns would be in violation of God’s intention in their creation. Those who argue thus must explain why the apostle Paul never married. And are they prepared to charge Jesus with violating the will of God by remaining single?

Certainly heterosexual marriage is normal, else the race would die out. But it is not normative. God can bless the world through people who are married and through people who are single, and it is false to generalize from the marriage of most people to the marriage of everyone. In 1 Cor. 7:7 Paul goes so far as to call marriage a “charisma,” or divine gift, to which not everyone is called. He preferred that people remain as he was–unmarried. In an age of overpopulation, perhaps a gay orientation is especially sound ecologically!

13. In many other ways we have developed different norms from those explicitly laid down by the Bible. For example, “If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity” (Deut. 25:11f.). We, on the contrary, might very well applaud her for trying to save her husband’s life!

14. The Old and New Testaments both regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemned it. Part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys, breeding machines, or involuntary wives by their male owners, which 2 Sam. 5:13, Judges 19-21 and Num. 31:18 permitted–and as many American slave owners did some 150 years ago, citing these and numerous other Scripture passages as their justification.

The Problem of Authority

These cases are relevant to our attitude toward the authority of Scripture. They are not cultic prohibitions from the Holiness Code that are clearly superseded in Christianity, such as rules about eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of two different materials. They are rules concerning sexual behavior, and they fall among the moral commandments of Scripture. Clearly we regard certain rules, especially in the Old Testament, as no longer binding. Other things we regard as binding, including legislation in the Old Testament that is not mentioned at all in the New. What is our principle of selection here?

For example, virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting: incest, rape, adultery, and intercourse with animals. But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow: intercourse during menstruation, celibacy, exogamy (marriage with non-Jews), naming sexual organs, nudity (under certain conditions), masturbation (some Christians still condemn this), birth control (some Christians still forbid this).

And the Bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not. Likewise, the Bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn: prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage, treatment of women as property, and very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13).

And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on four of them, and disagree with it on sixteen!

Surely no one today would recommend reviving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices? Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed in this country, despite the constitutional protection of freedom of religion, because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture. Yet no explicit biblical prohibition against polygamy exists.

If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these biblical sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then take even what Paul himself says as a new Law. Christians reserve the right to pick and choose which sexual mores they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that. And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners.

Judge for Yourselves

The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic. There is no Biblical sex ethic. Instead, it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand year span of biblical history. Mores are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period.

The very notion of a “sex ethic” reflects the materialism and splitness of modern life, in which we increasingly define our identity sexually. Sexuality cannot be separated off from the rest of life. No sex act is “ethical” in and of itself, without reference to the rest of a person’s life, the patterns of the culture, the special circumstances faced, and the will of God. What we have are simply sexual mores, which change, sometimes with startling rapidity, creating bewildering dilemmas. Just within one lifetime we have witnessed the shift from the ideal of preserving one’s virginity until marriage, to couples living together for several years before getting married. The response of many Christians is merely to long for the hypocrisies of an earlier era.

I agree that rules and norms are necessary; that is what sexual mores are. But rules and norms also tend to be impressed into the service of the Domination System, and to serve as a form of crowd control rather than to enhance the fullness of human potential. So we must critique the sexual mores of any given time and clime by the love ethic exemplified by Jesus. Defining such a love ethic is not complicated. It is non-exploitative (hence no sexual exploitation of children, no using of another to their loss), it does not dominate (hence no patriarchal treatment of women as chattel), it is responsible, mutual, caring, and loving. Augustine already dealt with this in his inspired phrase, “Love God, and do as you please.”

Our moral task, then, is to apply Jesus’ love ethic to whatever sexual mores are prevalent in a given culture. This doesn’t mean everything goes. It means that everything is to be critiqued by Jesus’ love commandment. We might address younger teens, not with laws and commandments whose violation is a sin, but rather with the sad experiences of so many of our own children who find too much early sexual intimacy overwhelming, and who react by voluntary celibacy and even the refusal to date. We can offer reasons, not empty and unenforceable orders. We can challenge both gays and straights to question their behaviors in the light of love and the requirements of fidelity, honesty, responsibility, and genuine concern for the best interests of the other and of society as a whole.

Christian morality, after all, is not a iron chastity belt for repressing urges, but a way of expressing the integrity of our relationship with God. It is the attempt to discover a manner of living that is consistent with who God created us to be. For those of same-sex orientation, as for heterosexuals, being moral means rejecting sexual mores that violate their own integrity and that of others, and attempting to discover what it would mean to live by the love ethic of Jesus.

Morton Kelsey goes so far as to argue that homosexual orientation has nothing to do with morality, any more than left-handedness. It is simply the way some people’s sexuality is configured. Morality enters the picture when that predisposition is enacted. If we saw it as a God-given gift to those for whom it is normal, we could get beyond the acrimony and brutality that have so often characterized the unchristian behavior of Christians toward gays.

Approached from the point of view of love rather than that of law, the issue is at once transformed. Now the question is not “What is permitted?” but rather “What does it mean to love my homosexual neighbor?” Approached from the point of view of faith rather than works, the question ceases to be “What constitutes a breach of divine law in the sexual realm?” and becomes instead “What constitutes integrity before the God revealed in the cosmic lover, Jesus Christ?” Approached from the point of view of the Spirit rather than the letter, the question ceases to be “What does Scripture command?” and becomes “What is the Word that the Spirit speaks to the churches now, in the light of Scripture, tradition, theology, and, yes, psychology, genetics, anthropology, and biology?” We can’t continue to build ethics on the basis of bad science.

In a little-remembered statement, Jesus said, “Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?” (Luke 12:57 NRSV). Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right. Yet Paul himself echoes Jesus’ sentiment when he says, “Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!” (1 Cor. 6:3 RSV). The last thing Paul would want is for people to respond to his ethical advice as a new law engraved on tablets of stone. He is himself trying to “judge for himself what is right.” If now new evidence is in on the phenomenon of homosexuality, are we not obligated–no, free–to re-evaluate the whole issue in the light of all the available data and decide what is right, under God, for ourselves? Is this not the radical freedom for obedience in which the gospel establishes us?

Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct. The Bible sanctioned slavery as well, and nowhere attacked it as unjust. Are we prepared to argue today that slavery is biblically justified? One hundred and fifty years ago, when the debate over slavery was raging, the Bible seemed to be clearly on the slaveholders’ side. Abolitionists were hard pressed to justify their opposition to slavery on biblical grounds. Yet today, if you were to ask Christians in the South whether the Bible sanctions slavery, virtually everyone would agree that it does not. How do we account for such a monumental shift?

What happened is that the churches were finally driven to penetrate beyond the legal tenor of Scripture to an even deeper tenor, articulated by Israel out of the experience of the Exodus and the prophets and brought to sublime embodiment in Jesus’ identification with harlots, tax collectors, the diseased and maimed and outcast and poor. It is that God sides with the powerless. God liberates the oppressed. God suffers with the suffering and groans toward the reconciliation of all things. In the light of that supernal compassion, whatever our position on gays, the gospel’s imperative to love, care for, and be identified with their sufferings is unmistakably clear.

In the same way, women are pressing us to acknowledge the sexism and patriarchalism that pervades Scripture and has alienated so many women from the church. The way out, however, is not to deny the sexism in Scripture, but to develop an interpretive theory that judges even Scripture in the light of the revelation in Jesus. What Jesus gives us is a critique of domination in all its forms, a critique that can be turned on the Bible itself. The Bible thus contains the principles of its own correction. We are freed from bibliolatry, the worship of the Bible. It is restored to its proper place as witness to the Word of God. And that word is a Person, not a book.

With the interpretive grid provided by a critique of domination, we are able to filter out the sexism, patriarchalism, violence, and homophobia that are very much a part of the Bible, thus liberating it to reveal to us in fresh ways the inbreaking, in our time, of God’s domination-free order.

An Appeal for Tolerance

What most saddens me in this whole raucous debate in the churches is how sub-Christian most of it has been. It is characteristic of our time that the issues most difficult to assess, and which have generated the greatest degree of animosity, are issues on which the Bible can be interpreted as supporting either side. I am referring to abortion and homosexuality.

We need to take a few steps back and be honest with ourselves. I am deeply convinced of the rightness of what I have said in this essay. But I must acknowledge that it is not an air tight case. You can find weaknesses in it, just as I can in others’. The truth is, we are not given unequivocal guidance in either area, abortion or homosexuality.

Rather than tearing at each others’s throats, therefore, we should humbly admit our limitations. How do I know I am correctly interpreting God’s word for us today? How do you? Wouldn’t it be wiser for Christians to lower the decibels by 95 percent and quietly present our beliefs, knowing full well that we might be wrong?

I know of a couple, both well known Christian authors in their own right, who have both spoken out on the issue of homosexuality. She supports gays, passionately; he opposes their behavior, strenuously. So far as I can tell, this couple still enjoy each other’s company, eat at the same table, and, for all I know, sleep in the same bed.

We in the church need to get our priorities straight. We have not reached a consensus about who is right on the issue of homosexuality. But what is clear, utterly clear, is that we are commanded to love one another. Love not just our gay sisters and brothers who are often sitting beside us, unacknowledged, in church, but all of us who are involved in this debate. These are issues about which we should amiably agree to disagree. We don’t have to tear whole denominations to shreds in order to air our differences on this point. If that couple I mentioned can continue to embrace across this divide, surely we can do so as well.

The creation story is used in opposition to gays and lesbians in several ways. According to the creation story (and we would be more accurate to say stories since there are two separate accounts given in these chapters) God created them Eve from Adam’s side to be his helpmate, the woman being a complimentary to the man. Thus the argument goes that God made woman for man and man for woman and therefore same-sex relationships are in violation of this divine order.

The second argument is that God gave Adam and Eve clear direction that they were to “go forth and multiply” and because same-sex couples aren’t able to procreate they are again unable to fulfill this divine directive.

In responding to the first argument, Peter Gomes writes in “The Good Book,”

”The authors of Genesis were intent upon answering the question, ‘Where do we come from?’ Then, as now, the only plausible answer is from the union of a man and a woman…The creation story in Genesis does not pretend to be a history of anthropology or of every social relationship. It does not mention friendship, for example, and yet we do not assume that friendship is condemned or abnormal. It does not mention the single state, and yet we know that singleness is not condemned, and that in certain religious circumstances it is held in very high esteem.”

While we recognize that heterosexual coupling is the norm in human relationships (and since we’re all here aren’t we glad about that?!) there’s nothing in the Creation story to suggest that heterosexual relationships are normative or exclusionary. Genesis doesn’t elevate them as such or set them as the ideal relationship for all humanity. Because Genesis is concerned with explaining how the world, including its population, came into being it’s only reasonable that the first family would begin with a male-female relationship, yet that doesn’t come at the cost of excluding, minimizing or denying all other varieties and combinations of human relationships from friendships to partnerships. Were male-female relationships the Divine ideal for all humanity (one man + one woman = one marriage) then one has to contend with Paul’s negative view of marriage and a single Savior. After all, wouldn’t Jesus have followed God’s divine order if marriage were the ideal?

An argument against homosexuality based on the inability for child-bearing is all the more problematic for those who wish to defend it given the vast number of marriages that never lead to procreation. Couples marry at ages when childbirth is no longer an option. Other couples are childless because of impotence, infertility, health restrictions, or genetic concerns. Still others opt to not have children for a variety of reasons. The lack of children doesn’t invalid these relationships nor does it devalue them. Neither should it for gay or lesbian couples.

We’ve heard it all before, that “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,” but what Genesis makes abundantly clear is that all creation came forth from God, including Adam and Eve, Sara and Lisa, Frank and Diane, Linda, Bob, Terrance, and all who are God’s children, each and every one.

If church tradition is to be part of what shapes our Christian theology then we need to recognize that church tradition and the understanding of earlier Christian theologians doesn’t support the more recent translations that have placed the word homosexuals or practicing homosexuals within the context of I Corinthians 6 or I Timothy 1. At different times within church history there have been varying understandings of these passages and their exact meaning has changed from one generation to the next, and now in our present time these two separate words have been collapsed into one to mean homosexual. Along with this acknowledgment, it seems both helpful and honest to recognize that what often finds it’s way into current biblical interpretation is not a more informed understanding of the biblical text based on years of accumulative knowledge but on imposing our own culture, complete with its prejudices into the interpretative work. What else would explain the shift in meaning and the narrowing of focus in the interpretation of these two passages over the last fifty years?

IT’S ALL GREEK TO ME

The first appearance of the word arsenokoitai in any ancient Greek literature is found in I Corinthians 6:9. While it might have been a word common in Paul’s time, it hasn’t been located in any other material predating or contemporary to Paul’s use of it in these two passages. It only begins to make its appearance in literature following Paul. An important tool in discovering the meaning of a word is to trace how it’s used within context. Were I to ask you to give me the definition to an unfamiliar word, you would most likely ask, “Use it for me in a sentence.” The problem with arsenokoitai is that prior to Paul’s usage we have no record of it’s use and in Paul’s case the word is used independently within a long list which offers no insight into its meaning.

The times arsenokoitai does appear following Paul yet it’s usage seems dependent on Paul’s usage of the word. In the Latin Vulgate that follows Paul some 500 years later, Jerome translates it as a male concubine although nothing in the word specifies whether the concubine was involved with a same-sex or opposite-sex individual. What we do know is at the time Paul was writing there were terms common for persons involved in homoeroticism and Paul chose to not use those words but to instead use a word that remains mysterious to us. What this means is that Greek scholars and theologians come to arsenokoitai with no previous context for understanding it’s meaning and so the best that anyone, whether pro-gay or anti-gay can reason is a guess.

In the early work the “New Testament and Homosexuality,” Robin Scroggs comes to an understanding of arsenokoitai by looking at the two separate words it combines; arseno (men) and koitai (bed). From this Scroggs concluded that the literal meaning of arsenokoitai was male bed which he understood as descriptive of the active male (penetrator) in same-sex intercourse. The problem with this method of interpretation can be seen with examples in English like lady-killer, manhole or butterfly. You don’t arrive at the true meaning of the word butterfly by defining and then combining the words butter and fly anymore than it’s possible to define the accurate meaning of arsenokoitai by combining and defining male and bed. Again, the very best anyone can do is hazard a guess at what arsenkoitai might mean but a guess is a fragile thread especially when lives hang in the balance.

Malakoi, on the other hand was a common word in the Greek language and there’s a long history of its recorded use both before and after Paul uses it in I Corinthians 6 and I Timothy 1. Jesus is recorded as using the word malakoi when speaking of “a man dressed in soft (malakoi) raiment” (Matthew 11:8). While historically, church tradition has often understood malakoi to imply a moral weakness, it was repeatedly used within ancient Greek culture to define those who were considered effeminate. It was occasionally used as a descriptive word for eromenos; eromenos being the passive partner in a relationship between an older mentor and the younger boy or the beloved (Refer to pederasty). Malakoi was also used in a much broader sense than exclusive to a homoerotic relationship but was used as well to describe those men who had too much sex with women for in ancient Rome, the effeminate looking man often presented himself that way to attract women rather than men since effeminate men were looked down upon by the male culture.

In the ancient world being effeminate had a much broader definition than in our time and included such behavior as bathing frequently, shaving, frequent dancing or laughing, wearing cologne, eating too much or wearing fine undergarments! Effeminate is the best understanding of the word and in its cultural context was threatening to the whole structure of society by crossing the fragile line between man and woman in a world where to be male was to be superior and to be woman was to be intrinsically inferior. Clearly, the times have changed and the chances of a preacher condemning aftershave and silk boxers from the pulpit are slim to none.

MALAKOI and ARSENOKOITAI ON THE MAP

Some scholars would argue that where malakoi and arsenokoitai are located in these passages should be considered when attempting to understand their meaning. I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1: 9-10 are lists of vices. Vice lists appear through Paul’s writings (Romans 1:29-31, Galatians 5:19-23, Colossians 3:18-4:1, Ephesians 5:21-6:9 and 2 Timothy 3:15) and was a common literary style in both Greco-Roman and Jewish literature (Homoeroticism in the Biblical World, page 113). Rather than being a random tossing together of sins, vice lists often appear to be in a categorical order as would seem apparent in both I Corinthians 6 and I Timothy 1.

I Corinthians 6 orders the vices as: fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, malakoi, arsenokoitai, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners.

I Timothy 1 orders the vices as: murderers, manslayers, whoremongers, arsenokoitai, menstealers (slave traders), liars, perjurers.

In the essay Arsenokoites and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences, included in Sex and the Single Savior, Dale Martin proposes that most vice lists, both in the Christian Testament and in ancient contemporary writings, separate vices in three categories: sexual sins, sins of violence and economic or injustice sins and he proposes that with this in mind, arsenokoitai, if referring to homosexuality doesn’t normally appear in the category of sexual sins but is in, or on the edge of, the economic category. Though uncertain as to the date of this particular oracle, Martin provides a reading from Sibylline Oracle 2.70-77 that is labeled under the heading “On Justice.”

“(Never accept in your hand a gift which derives from unjust deeds.) Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life.) (Do not arskenokoitein, do not betray information, do not murder.) Give one who has labored his wage. Do not oppress a poor man. Take heed of your speech. Keep a secret matter in your heart. (Make provision for orphans and widows and those in need.) Do not be willing to act unjustly, and therefore do not give leave to one who is acting unjustly.” (page 120).

No sexual sin is listed in the above writing but all the sins are of economic injustice, whether through the oppression of the poor, the withholding of wages or accepting gifts from unjust deeds. It seems a possibility that in this context arskenokoitein refers to money earned through sexual behavior, which would also appear to make sense in that it follows prostitution (whoremongers, pornos) in I Timothy. Perhaps it has nothing to do with sex. It remains uncertain. Whether arsenokoitai is defined by this source in the same way as defined by Paul is equally uncertain. What is certain is that there seems sufficient evidence, or the lack thereof, to leave this word and it’s appearance in I Corinthians 6 and I Timothy 1 as ambiguous in meaning. With so much uncertainty surrounding these words it’s of painful concern that it’s been used by some within the church with absolute rigidity to condemn gays and lesbians.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. 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 natural 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. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?” Romans I

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve received emails from strangers who upon finding this ministry online have included a cut and paste of Romans 1:26-27 in the body of the email, as if that’s all they need to say to prove their view that the Bible condemns homosexuality. I would suspect that those four verses have been quoted to nearly after GLBTQ Christian from once to a thousand times. There’s little question these two verses don’t sound particularly favorable concerning sexual relations between people of the same gender, and they aren’t favorable but for reasons that hinge on the world view at the time of Paul’s writing around human sexuality and gender roles which is another world, literally, from that of our own.

But even before looking at those verses we need to recognize that 1:26-27 don’t stand alone and when people quote them as though it’s the definitive word on a biblical condemnation of homosexuality then they’re engaging in the practice of proof-texting. Simply, proof-texting is when an individual scripture or selection of scriptures is used to support a position without regard for the context that held the scripture, often giving the words of the scripture different meaning than was the original intent of the writer. To use any scripture to support ones own ideology without consideration of the context in which it’s placed and the intent of the writer dishonors the scripture as a whole.

Intention and Context of Romans 1

Christianity had begun to grow in Rome and was comprised of both Gentile and Jewish believers. Though Paul had never been to the church in Rome, he mentions in the opening that while he has intended many times to come to them, he expresses hope that he might visit them soon. In the meantime, Paul sends this letter to the church in Rome that lays out Paul’s theology and the great themes of the Gospel. Most would consider the Book of Romans to be Paul’s most complete theological statement.

In the first three chapters Paul makes a strong case for the need of all people, both Jew and Gentile, to establish their faith in Jesus Christ. In Chapter 1 Paul speaks to the Jews of the sin of the Gentiles which they seem to have initially reported to him that resulted in this reply. In Chapter 2 Paul turns on the Jews and highlights their sin. In Chapter 3 Paul reaches the conclusion that “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (vs. 23, 24). This would seem to be Paul’s ultimate intention; to assert the need of all people to experience salvation by the Gospel message and the availability that Gospel to all, Gentile or Jew, male or female, slave or free.

Paul was writing to a specific people in a specific time. There’s no indication anywhere in Paul’s own words that as he wrote it was the entire world and with all time in mind. Paul was clueless than thousands of years later Christians would be reading his words, much less that they would be held within a canon along side the Torah. Paul’s focus was on the church in Rome and grounding them in the Gospel. In Romans 1 Paul is writing to a primarily Jewish audience (seen in his references to the Gentiles as they and them) and addresses the cause of the Gentiles ethnic impurity which is idolatry. Romans 1 is a story about the origin and consequences of idolatry.

In committing idolatry the Gentile people had dishonored God and in response God turns them over to dishonor themselves. The people actively chose to engage in one sin, that being idolatry, but from that point on it was God who gave them over to other sins as a penalty for the original great offense. Before jumping into the eye of the storm (verses 26-27) take a minute to read verses 21 through 31 as I’ve provided here so you can more clearly see the pattern included in the text.

The Sin: For although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. (verses 21-23)

The Penalty: Therefore (on account of) God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the dishonoring of their bodies with one another. (verse 24)

The Sin: because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. (verse 25)

The Penalty: For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (verses 26-27)

The Sin: And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God…(verse 28a)

The Penalty: God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. (verses 28b-31)

Returning again to verses 26-27, we need to be honest enough to say we don’t know exactly what Paul meant or what Paul might have thought concerning our current day understanding of homosexuality. We know however that Paul was a Jew and that the emphasis on purity in Leviticus were part of Paul’s thinking, as was the Greco-Roman world view in which he lived. Paul’s understanding about sexuality didn’t stand outside of all that but was greatly shaped by all that surrounded him. It seems more than evident that in verses 26-27 Paul has a negative view of homoeroticism and while we can’t know with any precision what Paul meant, we can make several general assumptions:

• Unnatural (para physin) is better understood as that which is out of the ordinary or beyond the ordinary rather than as perversion.
• Sex was for the purpose of procreation and had to include a dominant partner (male) and a passive partner (female). Anything that didn’t meet that normative form was para physin.
• One of the men in a same-sex encounter would dishonor himself by assuming the role of the passive partner and lowering his status to that of a woman. The other man brought dishonor on himself by allowing his kinsman to assume the role of the passive partner.
• Paul, as his contemporaries, saw all passions as uncontrolled and negative. As a result passion was always dishonorable and would obviousl