by Richard E. Sturm, January 4, 2009
At our Northeast Regional Assembly, Sept 13, 2008, countering statements Judith Wray and I had just made in support of a pro-Open and Affirming (O&A) resolution PACC was sponsoring, a young woman won the debate against our proposal with her conclusion: “In my Bible it says homosexuality is an abomination.”
This reading is widespread. Nearly all of us old enough to remember the King James Version (KJV) grew up with it, and a large majority of church-going Christians in this country today still believe this is the only possible interpretation. To think otherwise, they contend, is to twist the scriptures at the hands of liberal permissiveness. Indeed, many (if not most) liberals who are O&A in outlook assume that in the case of homosexuality, the Bible simply has to be set aside.
Nearly twenty years ago, our congregation became “Open and Affirming.” After Bible Study led by our Elders, we came to a different conclusion. We contend that the O&A position welcoming gays and lesbians into the church and all its privileges and responsibilities (like being baptized, partaking of communion, and becoming ordained) is actually more faithful to Scripture than the old, conventional approach.
MAIN PROBLEMS
I see three main problems here: (1) definition of terms (like “homosexuality,” “unnatural,” and “abomination”); (2) interpretation of specific Old Testament (OT) & New Testament (NT) passages (like Gen 19, Lev 18, and Rom 1:26-27); and (3) the nature and function of biblical authority (the way Scripture is being approached and used with regard to faith).
I would like to look briefly at each of these three problems and then draw some conclusions regarding the significance of the topic for our culture and our church. We may want or need to explore these problems at greater length at a Sunday Forum later this winter.
If there is interest, I also have a bibliography of many of the important texts on this topic in Biblical Studies and the Church, but two works were most helpful for me in this Forum: Willard M. Swartley’s Slavery, Sabbath, War, and Women (Herald, 1983), an excellent resource for hearing how devout Christians in the early 1800s argued biblically in favor of slavery; and Jack Rogers’ Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church (Westminster/John Knox, 2008), especially helpful for presenting unbiased exegesis of problematic passages in the Bible, as well as sensitivity to the pastoral concerns and enormous harm in the Church’s conventional approach to this topic.
(1) Definition of terms.
“Homosexual/homosexuality” is a modern term and conception, first appearing in 1892, in C. G. Chaddock’s translation of a German phrase in Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopatheia Sexualis 3:255, referring to a patient who “had been free from homo-sexual inclinations.” (Rogers 138, n 23).
A large percentage (the majority?) of Americans continue to assume the term refers to a mental disorder or moral perversion, despite the conclusion of the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 and the American Psychological Association in 1975 that homosexuality is neither.
In 1994, both scientific bodies confirmed their earlier conclusion: “The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals” (Rogers 98).
This understanding goes one step further in a position statement on the treatment of homosexual patients in 1997: “Same-gender sexual orientation cannot be assumed to represent a deficit in personality development or the expression of psychopathology. As with any societal prejudice, anti-homosexual bias negatively affects mental health, contributing to an enduring sense of stigma and pervasive self-criticism in people of same-gender sexual orientation through the internalization of such prejudice” (Rogers 99).
The scientific community of psychiatrists and psychologists define homosexuality as an orientation (N.B., not a “lifestyle”), an instinctual attraction to persons of one’s own gender. Therefore, it is no more ethical or unethical than heterosexuality—like left-handedness, simply the characteristic of a minority. But when homosexuality is assumed to be equivalent to a psychological and moral disease, as so many in our society still do, the consequences can become deadly.
I think of the terrible statistics on teen suicides and the youth growing up in congregations where preachers perpetuate the definition of homosexuality as a sin or abomination. At the Regional Assembly, I questioned whether such “Christian” education, sanctifying a popular prejudice, is not really a sin against the Holy Spirit, if, as O & A congregations affirm, God has created us all in God’s image. Our Pastor refers to this understanding of Creation as the “divinity of diversity.”
If the word, “homosexual” has only been around 106 years, what are the biblical (Greek and Hebrew) words that have been translated or related to homosexuality?
“Unnatural” = para physin (vs. kata physin, “according to nature”) [Rom 1]
Arsenokoitai—and malakoi = “sodomites” (KJV), child molesters, perverts?—and “catamites,” effeminates [1 Cor 6]
“Abomination” = toevah ב ע ת [bdelygma, βδελύγμα] (ritually unclean, dirty, impure, unjewish)—like pork, shellfish, cheeseburgers, leprosy, or any parent-cursing child. [Lev 18; 20]
(2) Interpretation of eight specific OT and NT passages.
There is not time in this Forum to explore any of these passages in depth, which we may want or need to do in another session. But it should prove helpful simply to get an overview of the troublesome texts. [Evidence of irrational bias here? Sins of greed and economic injustice have hundreds and hundreds of references; “Homosexuality,” even if that is what the Bible is talking about, is a minor concern.]
Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:1-29; Jude 5-7); cf. Rape of the Levite’s Concubine (Judg 19:1-30). In OT, references to the sins of Sodom = inhospitality (as in Mt 10:15, Lk 10:12), greed, injustice, excess wealth, indifference to the poor, general wickedness. Only later rabbinic and Christian texts does the emphasis shift to same sex violation. [Originally, concern seems focused on improper intermingling of what God wants to be kept separate—namely, human beings and heavenly beings, angels (see Gen 6:1ff). Note also the evidence in these texts of uncritical sexism, the devaluing of women. Finally, note the need for ancient Israelites and Jews to be distinct from pagan neighbors.]
Holiness Code Commandments (Lev 18:22; 20:13), “lying with a man as with a woman.” Proscribed punishment = death by stoning. [Note evidence of bias again? Is anyone arguing for capital punishment of rebellious children? There seems to be selective literalism and sexual obsession at play here.]
Vice Lists (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10), sexual exploitation, (cultic) prostitution. [Note the sexism evident here, i.e., men abhorring being considered womanly. There is no awareness or consideration of sexual orientation and attraction or relationships of love.]
Natural Order (Rom 1:26-27), idolatry, degrading passions, acc to contemporary Jewish righteousness. [Again, Paul shows no awareness of sexual orientation and same sex attraction in the natural world. Moreover, most readers fail to recognize Paul’s line of argument, evident in Rom 2:1 and 3:21-26, in which (Jewish Christian) judgmentalism against (Gentile) lawlessness is also condemned. Paul reminds all Christians in Rome that human beings cannot be differentiated with regard to sin, whereby some fall short and some do not—all are saved only by the grace of Christ Jesus’ death on the cross.]
Other texts are sometimes mentioned: 2 Pet 2:6 and (KJV) Dt 23:17; 1 Kgs 14:24; 15:12, 22:47; and 2 Kgs 23:7. [Note the way translations, reflecting the bias of their day, can perpetuate discrimination.]
(3) Nature and Function of Biblical Authority.
We know that Scripture can fall under the power of Sin, so that the Bible is used to sanctify prejudice and evil. For centuries racist readings of Scripture upheld the institution of slavery, and for many a sexist reading continues to deny that women are made in the image of God equally to men, prohibiting them from ordination and other ministries. The Church has been similarly divided over such “sins” as divorce, smoking, dancing, or drinking, sometimes making certain practices/works pre-requisites for ordination.
O & A churches see the sin of heterosexism or homophobia at play in the conventional interpretation of passages supposedly dealing with “homosexuality.” A sexual orientation is not inherently sinful, but it is as sinful for heterosexuals to claim that only their experience of sexual attraction is “clean” as it would be for right-handed people to force left-handed people to use their hands the way they do.
Once a sin or prejudice is recognized, it is humbling but liberating to read the scriptures anew. This is happening for more and more of us in biblical interpretation, but as our last Regional Assembly showed, the pace seems much too slow.
There’s something about this last expression of prejudice, related to racism and sexism, that people, especially men, in power cannot be open to dialogue or change. Like the Pharisees of the NT, they would rather see one or two individuals perish, to preserve the nation. Obsessive concern for purity sees grace as blasphemous.
BRINGING ABOUT CHANGE
What approach to Scripture can help to bring about change? Let me offer a few guidelines in terms of being faithful to Scripture:
(1) Beware of bibliolatry, making an idol of (a reading of) Scripture. If our faith affirms Christ Jesus as fully human as well as divine, Scripture must not rank above Christ, as only divine. The Bible has a human and historical context that must be considered and explored.
(2) Read individual passages of the Bible with the whole canon in mind. The rest of Scripture may provide a dynamic contrast or even corrective to what is found in one passage.
(3) Read with the great themes of Scripture in mind, like justice, mercy, hope, and love. These may positively affect understanding of passages on righteousness and judgment. If our interpretation of any passage does not strengthen the great commandments to love God and neighbor, or if our judgment is always pointed out against others, we need to keep reading.
(4) Read with the heart and mind of Christ. Without the Spirit of Christ, Scripture can become a letter that kills, rather then the bearer of life.
(5) Invite as many as possible to the table of interpretation. One person’s reading of a passage can change our appreciation of a text for a lifetime.
A story told me years ago by a NT scholar and colleague, Sharon Ringe, illustrates this point. During a summer when she was teaching Bible in a peasant villages in Costa Rica, a little girl asked her a question that in all of Sharon’s years of NT research had never before occurred to her.
The text was Luke 15, the so-called Prodigal Son parable. The girl asked, “At the end, when there was all the rejoicing, did the servants get to join in the feast?” Luke is silent here, although Gospel images of the messianic banquet indicate an inclusive welcome. But it may take a peasant child, someone who has known only a life of serving feasts for other wealthy patrons, to ask new questions of familiar texts.
Sharon said, and I testify for myself as well, that she can no longer read the parable of the Loving Father without that girl’s question in mind. At the table of biblical interpretation, we need to welcome all, especially those with difficult questions. Reading Scripture faithfully means reading the Bible through as many eyes as we can, whatever a person’s race or ethnic background, gender, class, age, physical ability, family configuration, or sexual orientation.]
The following are notes that Rev. Sturm made for his Sunday Forum appearances at the Park Avenue Christian Church in January and February 2009.
At our Northeast Regional Assembly, Sept 13, 2008, countering statements Judith Wray and I had just made in support of a pro-Open and Affirming (O&A) resolution PACC was sponsoring, a young woman won the debate against our proposal with her conclusion: “In my Bible it says homosexuality is an abomination.”
This reading is widespread. Nearly all of us old enough to remember the King James Version (KJV) grew up with it, and a large majority of church-going Christians in this country today still believe this is the only possible interpretation. To think otherwise, they contend, is to twist the scriptures at the hands of liberal permissiveness. Indeed, many (if not most) liberals who are O&A in outlook assume that in the case of homosexuality, the Bible simply has to be set aside.
Nearly twenty years ago, our congregation became “Open and Affirming.” After Bible Study led by our Elders, we came to a different conclusion. We contend that the O&A position welcoming gays and lesbians into the church and all its privileges and responsibilities (like being baptized, partaking of communion, and becoming ordained) is actually more faithful to Scripture than the old, conventional approach.
MAIN PROBLEMS
I see three main problems here: (1) definition of terms (like “homosexuality,” “unnatural,” and “abomination”); (2) interpretation of specific Old Testament (OT) & New Testament (NT) passages (like Gen 19, Lev 18, and Rom 1:26-27); and (3) the nature and function of biblical authority (the way Scripture is being approached and used with regard to faith).
I would like to look briefly at each of these three problems and then draw some conclusions regarding the significance of the topic for our culture and our church. We may want or need to explore these problems at greater length at a Sunday Forum later this winter.
If there is interest, I also have a bibliography of many of the important texts on this topic in Biblical Studies and the Church, but two works were most helpful for me in this Forum: Willard M. Swartley’s Slavery, Sabbath, War, and Women (Herald, 1983), an excellent resource for hearing how devout Christians in the early 1800s argued biblically in favor of slavery; and Jack Rogers’ Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church (Westminster/John Knox, 2008), especially helpful for presenting unbiased exegesis of problematic passages in the Bible, as well as sensitivity to the pastoral concerns and enormous harm in the Church’s conventional approach to this topic.
(1) Definition of terms.
“Homosexual/homosexuality” is a modern term and conception, first appearing in 1892, in C. G. Chaddock’s translation of a German phrase in Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopatheia Sexualis 3:255, referring to a patient who “had been free from homo-sexual inclinations.” (Rogers 138, n 23).
A large percentage (the majority?) of Americans continue to assume the term refers to a mental disorder or moral perversion, despite the conclusion of the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 and the American Psychological Association in 1975 that homosexuality is neither.
In 1994, both scientific bodies confirmed their earlier conclusion: “The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals” (Rogers 98).
This understanding goes one step further in a position statement on the treatment of homosexual patients in 1997: “Same-gender sexual orientation cannot be assumed to represent a deficit in personality development or the expression of psychopathology. As with any societal prejudice, anti-homosexual bias negatively affects mental health, contributing to an enduring sense of stigma and pervasive self-criticism in people of same-gender sexual orientation through the internalization of such prejudice” (Rogers 99).
The scientific community of psychiatrists and psychologists define homosexuality as an orientation (N.B., not a “lifestyle”), an instinctual attraction to persons of one’s own gender. Therefore, it is no more ethical or unethical than heterosexuality—like left-handedness, simply the characteristic of a minority. But when homosexuality is assumed to be equivalent to a psychological and moral disease, as so many in our society still do, the consequences can become deadly.
I think of the terrible statistics on teen suicides and the youth growing up in congregations where preachers perpetuate the definition of homosexuality as a sin or abomination. At the Regional Assembly, I questioned whether such “Christian” education, sanctifying a popular prejudice, is not really a sin against the Holy Spirit, if, as O & A congregations affirm, God has created us all in God’s image. Our Pastor refers to this understanding of Creation as the “divinity of diversity.”
If the word, “homosexual” has only been around 106 years, what are the biblical (Greek and Hebrew) words that have been translated or related to homosexuality?
“Unnatural” = para physin (vs. kata physin, “according to nature”) [Rom 1]
Arsenokoitai—and malakoi = “sodomites” (KJV), child molesters, perverts?—and “catamites,” effeminates [1 Cor 6]
“Abomination” = toevah ב ע ת [bdelygma, βδελύγμα] (ritually unclean, dirty, impure, unjewish)—like pork, shellfish, cheeseburgers, leprosy, or any parent-cursing child. [Lev 18; 20]
(2) Interpretation of eight specific OT and NT passages.
There is not time in this Forum to explore any of these passages in depth, which we may want or need to do in another session. But it should prove helpful simply to get an overview of the troublesome texts. [Evidence of irrational bias here? Sins of greed and economic injustice have hundreds and hundreds of references; “Homosexuality,” even if that is what the Bible is talking about, is a minor concern.]
Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:1-29; Jude 5-7); cf. Rape of the Levite’s Concubine (Judg 19:1-30). In OT, references to the sins of Sodom = inhospitality (as in Mt 10:15, Lk 10:12), greed, injustice, excess wealth, indifference to the poor, general wickedness. Only later rabbinic and Christian texts does the emphasis shift to same sex violation. [Originally, concern seems focused on improper intermingling of what God wants to be kept separate—namely, human beings and heavenly beings, angels (see Gen 6:1ff). Note also the evidence in these texts of uncritical sexism, the devaluing of women. Finally, note the need for ancient Israelites and Jews to be distinct from pagan neighbors.]
Holiness Code Commandments (Lev 18:22; 20:13), “lying with a man as with a woman.” Proscribed punishment = death by stoning. [Note evidence of bias again? Is anyone arguing for capital punishment of rebellious children? There seems to be selective literalism and sexual obsession at play here.]
Vice Lists (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10), sexual exploitation, (cultic) prostitution. [Note the sexism evident here, i.e., men abhorring being considered womanly. There is no awareness or consideration of sexual orientation and attraction or relationships of love.]
Natural Order (Rom 1:26-27), idolatry, degrading passions, acc to contemporary Jewish righteousness. [Again, Paul shows no awareness of sexual orientation and same sex attraction in the natural world. Moreover, most readers fail to recognize Paul’s line of argument, evident in Rom 2:1 and 3:21-26, in which (Jewish Christian) judgmentalism against (Gentile) lawlessness is also condemned. Paul reminds all Christians in Rome that human beings cannot be differentiated with regard to sin, whereby some fall short and some do not—all are saved only by the grace of Christ Jesus’ death on the cross.]
Other texts are sometimes mentioned: 2 Pet 2:6 and (KJV) Dt 23:17; 1 Kgs 14:24; 15:12, 22:47; and 2 Kgs 23:7. [Note the way translations, reflecting the bias of their day, can perpetuate discrimination.]
(3) Nature and Function of Biblical Authority.
We know that Scripture can fall under the power of Sin, so that the Bible is used to sanctify prejudice and evil. For centuries racist readings of Scripture upheld the institution of slavery, and for many a sexist reading continues to deny that women are made in the image of God equally to men, prohibiting them from ordination and other ministries. The Church has been similarly divided over such “sins” as divorce, smoking, dancing, or drinking, sometimes making certain practices/works pre-requisites for ordination.
O & A churches see the sin of heterosexism or homophobia at play in the conventional interpretation of passages supposedly dealing with “homosexuality.” A sexual orientation is not inherently sinful, but it is as sinful for heterosexuals to claim that only their experience of sexual attraction is “clean” as it would be for right-handed people to force left-handed people to use their hands the way they do.
Once a sin or prejudice is recognized, it is humbling but liberating to read the scriptures anew. This is happening for more and more of us in biblical interpretation, but as our last Regional Assembly showed, the pace seems much too slow.
There’s something about this last expression of prejudice, related to racism and sexism, that people, especially men, in power cannot be open to dialogue or change. Like the Pharisees of the NT, they would rather see one or two individuals perish, to preserve the nation. Obsessive concern for purity sees grace as blasphemous.
BRINGING ABOUT CHANGE
What approach to Scripture can help to bring about change? Let me offer a few guidelines in terms of being faithful to Scripture:
(1) Beware of bibliolatry, making an idol of (a reading of) Scripture. If our faith affirms Christ Jesus as fully human as well as divine, Scripture must not rank above Christ, as only divine. The Bible has a human and historical context that must be considered and explored.
(2) Read individual passages of the Bible with the whole canon in mind. The rest of Scripture may provide a dynamic contrast or even corrective to what is found in one passage.
(3) Read with the great themes of Scripture in mind, like justice, mercy, hope, and love. These may positively affect understanding of passages on righteousness and judgment. If our interpretation of any passage does not strengthen the great commandments to love God and neighbor, or if our judgment is always pointed out against others, we need to keep reading.
(4) Read with the heart and mind of Christ. Without the Spirit of Christ, Scripture can become a letter that kills, rather then the bearer of life.
(5) Invite as many as possible to the table of interpretation. One person’s reading of a passage can change our appreciation of a text for a lifetime.
A story told me years ago by a NT scholar and colleague, Sharon Ringe, illustrates this point. During a summer when she was teaching Bible in a peasant villages in Costa Rica, a little girl asked her a question that in all of Sharon’s years of NT research had never before occurred to her.
The text was Luke 15, the so-called Prodigal Son parable. The girl asked, “At the end, when there was all the rejoicing, did the servants get to join in the feast?” Luke is silent here, although Gospel images of the messianic banquet indicate an inclusive welcome. But it may take a peasant child, someone who has known only a life of serving feasts for other wealthy patrons, to ask new questions of familiar texts.
Sharon said, and I testify for myself as well, that she can no longer read the parable of the Loving Father without that girl’s question in mind. At the table of biblical interpretation, we need to welcome all, especially those with difficult questions. Reading Scripture faithfully means reading the Bible through as many eyes as we can, whatever a person’s race or ethnic background, gender, class, age, physical ability, family configuration, or sexual orientation.]
