(Each question series starts with a story, then builds into a conversation about a real, pressing, religious or moral topic. The included authors below are friends I grew up with who have gone on to become pastors and master students in churches and divinity programs. We talk about dirty subjects in order to find the truth, not dogma, not cliche, but balanced truth, which often means debunking the moderan interpretation of the Bible. This is no a place to proselytize or start fights, it’s only to discuss facts, and create a better understanding. After all, what good is any religion if talking about certain parts of it only causes people to hate each other? That’s exactly what we’re trying to avoid)
The Question Series— #5
Turff War.
Living in a city as big as Toronto has its pluses and minuses.
Plus: food, any kind you want, on demand 24 hours a day.
Minus: tourists, public transit, and lack of privacy.
Plus: there is always something going on.
Minus: whatever is going on is usually loud…
I live near the intersection of Dundas and Yonge. It’s like the Time Square of Toronto, with giant light boards and ads and protests and all sorts of other outdoor activity that get right up in your face. It’s not uncommon to see things like live musicians playing buckets for spare change, bums with their hats turned up and their faces turned down, street artists, people dressed like robots or super heroes, and other colorful shenanigans.
I know, I know, you can see that in any big city if you know where to look, but yesterday I saw what seemed to be the corporal representation of three major societal talking points. In a row, with signs and tables and flyers, there was an Islamic activist group handing out free information on Islam, next to an evangelical Christian group handing out free information on Christianity. Like competitor lemonade stands they operated within 10 feet of the other, neither talking, information dangling into the crowds like bait on a fishing rod, waiting for someone to bit.
I marveled at it. In America, an Islam display like this in a major city—like New York—would definitely get the locals in a huff. Not here in Toronto though, were the only real offense a person can commit is to shove a view point down your throat. It is my understanding that Canadian’s frown upon frown upon religious proselytizing unlike their American counterparts who seems to accept it as a fact of life.
This why the third person on the scene was so odd: A street preacher with a megaphone straddling the mouth of the busy Dundas/Yonge crosswalk. His blaring message was simple, one we’ve all heard before: the world was full of idols and everyone was going to hell lest they except Jesus as their savior. He did, however, offer a had a new twist to his message, and it went something like, “everyone unsaved is going to hell, specifically gays.”
I watched him go about his business, trying my best not to make eye contact. Sure enough, After a minute or two, a group of gays stopped to argue with the street preacher. It should be known that Toronto has the largest overtly, rights-oriented, homosexual community outside of San Francisco. In fact, there is a neighborhood with in 4 blocks of my hotel nicknamed the “Gay-borhood”.
Because the Gay population is so concentrated, and the proselytizing so frowned upon, what happens is almost something like a turf war. Evangelical groups go into the gay community to fight for their God. Gay groups counter by fighting for their rights.
What proceeded take place with the street preacher was not an issue of conversion, but and issue of rights as protected by the Canadian government vs those ordained by God. In Toronto, you have the right to be gay, to which the preacher contested that “in the kingdom of heaven, you have the right to burn in hell.”
Amen?
I found myself pulling for the gay group though I believed in the same God as the street preacher. Why did I pull for the gays? Well, because the Gays were trying to inform the street preacher that he was wrong, that he couldn’t judge them, and that he was in sin for trying to. I didn’t know if he truly was or not, but I was won over by how, at no point in time, did the gays tell the preacher his God was a liar, a fake, or a myth. The preacher argued from a supremacy standpoint. He acted like he was doing the gay group a favor by trading them like equals, which really rubbed me the wrong way.
As the conversation went on, it was plain to me that the person spouting scriptures of damnation didn’t really understand what he was talking about. Yes, he could quote what the bible said—that sin leads to hell. But there is so much in the bible that talks about love, redemption, forgiveness, and peace everlasting. Where were those scriptures? I had to wonder who had a better understanding of the subject matter? The Preacher, the Gays, or the silent and non pushy Islamic and christian groups?
Are those Gays really going to hell? Does the bible truly say they are abominations? And if they are, is that something worth getting on a street corner and yelling about? Or, should Christians simply stand on corner, keep their mouth shut and head down and hand out pamphlets in hopes that the Holy Spirit will do the work? I’ve heard that the bible backs up both points of view… Which leads me to ask, does it? Really? Or is this just another case of twisting scriptures to accomplish our own ends?
First Answer, From Mr. Duke.
There are only six passages in the Bible that refer to same-sex behavior…all are negative. Out of roughly 31,000 verses in Scripture (23,000 OT; 7,958 NT) these six instances have become ground zero for the American culture war.
The six passages being discussed here are: Genesis 19 (Sodom & Gomorrah); Leviticus 18; Leviticus 20; Romans 1; First Corinthians 6; First Timothy 1
Though we will at some point need to discuss Genesis 2, at the moment I would like to focus on the biblical passages where same-sex relationships are depicted or spoken of. Therefore, we will begin with Gen 19 and Sodom and Gomorrah.
For as long as I can remember I was taught that God’s destruction of Sodom was due to the city’s sexual depravity, i.e., its tolerance of homosexuality.
The evangelical writer Francis Frangipane was the first author I read to point out that this is incorrect. God did judge these wicked cities, but for the crime of being inhospitable, not for being gay.
I was shocked by this revelation, but Frangipane isn’t wrong, and we can prove it from Scripture. The destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah is referred to 20 times in Scripture, but homosexuality is never mentioned as the reason.
…God, speaking through the prophet Ezekiel, says that Sodom was destroyed because of “pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the needy” Ezekiel 16:49. Both Matthew and Luke 10 quote Jesus as implying that judgment came upon those cities for the crime of inhospitality…
…Jude 7 does say that Sodom and Gomorrah were punished with unquenchable fire because they indulged in “sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust.” However, “sexual immorality” is not code for same-sex relations. No one can argue that the Bible condemns sexual immorality, but the list of what this entails is rather long and may not specifically include same-sex relations. Also, the Greek for “unnatural lust” or more literally “strange flesh” (σαρκὸς ἑτέρας) is referring to human/celestial relationships, not homosexuality, as can be seen from Jude’s context in reference to First Enoch and the Book of the Watchers. Jude assumes that the men of Sodom knew that Lot’s guests were angels, and that the tipping point in God’s decision to destroy the city was due to their desire to have intercourse with angelic beings.
The author of Genesis wants his audience to know that Sodom’s sin is a lack of hospitality. The people of Sodom are compared to the generosity of Abraham and Lot, and they are found wanting.
But what of 19:4-11 where the men of the city demand to have sex with Lot’s guests? Gang rape of men by men was used as a common tactic of humiliation and aggression in warfare and other hostile contexts in the ancient world…
…It had nothing to do with sexual orientation. The point of the act was to show dominance over the victim and to shame them. It is a tactic still employed in parts of the world.
Again, the author is contrasting the brutality of Sodom with the hospitality of Abraham and Lot. The actions of the men of Sodom depict their common treatment of outsiders (and the divine), not that they were gay.
Jewish and early Christian commentators on this passage focused on a lack of hospitality as the reason for the cities judgment (See Josephus, Wisdom of Solomon, Origen and Ambrose). It was not until the Middle Ages when homosexuality began being postulated as the source of the destruction.
Leviticus
Moving from Genesis to the Leviticus.
The book of Leviticus deals with ceremonial issues related to appropriate worship practices at the tabernacle: various offerings, how to make them, clean verses unclean foods, diseases & bodily discharges, sexual taboos, and rules for priests.
Chapter 18 of Leviticus contains a list of sexual prohibitions, and chapter 20 follows up with a list of punishments.
Any discussion of Leviticus and same-sex relationships is going to center around the Hebrew word תּוֹעֵבָה, which is translated into English as “abomination.”
“Abomination” is primarily used in the OT to distinguish between practices that are common to foreign nations from those that are distinctly Israelite. For example in Gen 43:32, Joseph will not eat with his Israelite brothers because it is an “abomination” for an Egyptian to eat with a Hebrew. Likewise, in Exodus 8:26 Moses refuses Pharaoh’s offer of the Israelites sacrificing within Egyptian territory because Hebrew sacrifices are “abominations” to Egyptians.
The term “abomination” is culturally specific. It defines ritual and ethical boundaries between Israel and other nations. That is why numerous things labeled as “abominations” have been accepted practices of the Christian Church: eating shellfish, eating pork, sex during a woman’s menstrual period, the charging of interest, working on the Sabbath, wearing clothes made of two different fibers, planting two different kinds of plants next to each other.
In contemporary American culture it would be an “abomination” if the first act the pastor performed on Sunday was to slaughter a bull upon the altar, even though this is what Leviticus 1:9 prescribes.
Modern Americans consider the idea of owning another human being as property to be an “abomination”, even though Leviticus 25:44 says it’s okay as long as they are taken from the surrounding nations.
Everyone reading this post would consider the act of selling a daughter into slavery as an “abominable” act, but the practice was so common within Israel that rules were laid out for it in Exodus 21:7.
Leviticus 21:20 is certainly in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, as no person with a bent spine, a blemish in the eyes, itchy skin, or of uncommonly short stature may approach God’s altar.
This is NOT a matter of Law vs. Grace. God did not approve of these one-day and discard them the next. It is a matter of culture. What is unthinkable to a 21st century American was just another day-in-the-life of a first century Jewish peasant, and vice verse.
Romans
The passage in Romans 1:26-27 is the most significant of the verses we will deal with for three reasons: 1) it appears in the NT and does not have the problem of context and applicability that Leviticus does……2) Unlike Leviticus, it speaks of both men and women…3) These two consecutive verses are the longest discussion of same-sex relationships anywhere in Scripture.
Romans 1-3 describes the unrighteousness of ALL humanity, and the universal need for a savior. In 1:18-32 Paul lays out the Gentile descent into idolatry and the consequences for the rejection of God, i.e., the exchanging of “natural” passions for “unnatural” ones.
The traditional evangelical view is that Paul labels same-sex unions unnatural, outside of God’s design set forth in Gen 1&2, so it is sinful in any context.
IMPORTANT FOR UNDERSTANDING 1:26-27: How do we understand the term “natural” and “unnatural”? Does “natural” refer back to Gen 1&2 and reveal heterosexuality as God’s intended design and homosexuality as an unnatural distortion of that design?
The first question we must ask is how does the term “nature” function within Paul’s passage?
In Romans 1:18-20 Paul argues that idolaters are worthy of blame because they knew God but chose to reject Him. Paul’s logic about sexual relations follows the same pattern. Women “exchanged” natural relations for unnatural ones. Men “abandoned” women for men.
The implications of Paul’s words are clear, those indulging in such behavior are not human beings distracted by something else and losing sight of God; they gave God their consideration, and concluded that God was unnecessary to their living.
The argument flows as follows: Just as humans were naturally exposed to the knowledge of God, so men and women began in heterosexuality but exchanged or abandoned it for what was not natural to them.
Paul’s argument about idolatry requires an exchange or abandonment. For his claim to make sense, the people he is describing must begin with heterosexuality and make an unnatural move toward homosexuality.
How was homosexuality viewed in the ancient world? It was believed to be an excess of lust or passion that anyone could be prone to. One example is John Chrysostom, who wrote in the fourth century, “You will see that all such desires (homosexuality) stems from greed that will not remain within its usual bounds.”
Homosexuality was viewed as similar to gluttony.
In the ancient world sexuality was understood in terms of a spectrum: attraction to the opposite sex meant that a person had a moderate level of desire, but attraction to the same sex was seen as an excess of desire.
Paul illustrates his point (which is idolatry) by pointing to those commonly understood to be so filled with lust that what they were created for could no longer satisfy them.
The second question we must ask in order to understand this passage is: How does Paul use “natural” and “unnatural” in his other letters?
A very similar passage to Romans 1:26-27 is First Corinthians 11:13-15 where Paul discusses the custom of covering a woman’s head.
“Does not nature (φύσις same word for “nature” in Romans) itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading (ἀτιμία same word meaning “vile, ignoble, dishonorable” as used in Rom 1:26 to describe unnatural lust of heathen women) to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” 1 Cor 11:14-15.
What Paul describes as “degrading” is only so because of particular customs.
In fact, Paul’s use of “nature” φύσις, is a purely Greek concept, and typically Stoic. The Stoics sought to live in harmony with the nautral order. What is odd is that the Stoics did not view homosexual desire as outside the natural order – perhaps because it is observable in nature.
Paul’s use of “nature” in First Corinthians 11:14 is referring to custom, and makes the verse much clearer: “Does not custom itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long, it is degrading to him…”
Paul sees same-sex relations as unnatural because in the ancient world there was no such thing as “sexual orientation”. Instead, sex was understood as having two roles: active and passive. The man was seen as active, the woman as passive.
For a man to take on the “passive” role was seen as a lowering of a man to the level of a woman. Lesbians were often more highly regarded because to take on the active role and dominate another woman was seen to be elevating oneself to the role of a man.
I’m not going to go into Corinthians and Timothy. I’ve posted SO much already, and the meat of the argument lies in the verses already discussed. I’m going to try and wrap this part up with a conclusion and see if anyone hung around long enough to ask questions.
I don’t think it is wise for Christians to argue from Gen 19 and Leviticus 18 & 20 that homosexuality is a sin. The Sodom story simply doesn’t apply, and any attempt to argue from Leviticus will get drowned out by anyone who is familiar with the crazy laws written in the book.
It can be argued from Romans if you believe that homosexuality is a choice (or mental malfunction).
First let me preface what I am about to say with this…In NO way shape or form am I advocating promiscuity, heterosexual or homosexual. For sex to be acceptable in Scripture it must take place with a willing partner, within a monogamous relationship, and under the covenant of marriage.
The question that needs asking is whether or not a same-sex relationship could meet all of those requirements in the ancient world when Paul was writing. The answer is no.
However, the reason the answer is no is because the reasons for marriage were very different in the ancient world.
Because less than half the children born made it to adulthood, there was incredible pressure on a husband and wife to produce a healthy male heir who could carry on the family name.
With mortality rates for infants, pregnant women, and the elderly so incredibly high, a society depended on young couples to keep the population at a level where the economy wouldn’t crash because of a lack of people. YES, that was real concern in the Greco-Roman world.
In fact, Roman emperors used to tax single men, while giving tax breaks to married couples.
Singleness was viewed as antisocial and shameful. A single person not only brought shame on themselves but on their entire family as well.
Remember though, the Greco-Roman world was not opposed to homosexuality. It was not recognized because the primary reason for marriage was the continuation of society, which was not something possible in the ancient world. It was probably not even conceivable.
We view marriage very differently today. Children are no longer the reason for getting married. There is a sharp rise in the number of couples deciding not to have children, as well as a large number of couples having children outside of marriage bonds.
Paul’s argument hinges on an abandonment of “natural” desires. But what if some people are born gay? What if they have a natural inclination for the same sex?
I know quite a few homosexuals, all of whom have a similar story. Around the age of 12 or 13 they realized something was different about them. They knew they weren’t like their friends and they also knew that they had better keep their mouths shut about it or face being ostracized by their peers.
If homosexuals are born not made, then I see no reason why a committed, monogamous, married couple could not be an active member in good standing in any church.
Second Answer, From Mr. Prez.
Time out. There are absolutely Scripture verses defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In Matthew 19 and Mark 10, in an argument on divorce, Jesus uses Genesis 2 as the definition of marriage. The argument isn’t about homosexuality, but it does solidify Genesis 2 as the foundation of marriage. On the question of whether homosexuality is a sin, there are few verses outside Leviticus that specifically deal with it. Romans 1 does, but that is also talking about a general lifestyle of ungodliness. However, the New Testament repeatedly uses the word “porneia” (usually translated “impurity” or “fornication”) and any cursory study of what was meant at the time reveals that it was used to speak of homosexual practice. Both Paul and Jesus condemn “porneia” as sin. However, this does not and cannot be used to say someone is going to hell. If sin sends us to hell, then we’re all doomed. In fact, sin does send us to hell, but grace covers over our sin. If we’re going to condemn this one sin as unforgivable, then what other sins of ours are also unforgivable? We cannot condemn one corner of society for urges and feelings over which they have no control, but we also can’t give God’s stamp of approval for sinful actions over which they do have control. Our response rather should be to proclaim grace. We learned grace on the cross, where our sins were shown to be horrifyingly ugly, but at the same moment were also shown to be wholly forgiven. We don’t need to, nor is it faithful action to focus on the sins of those who do not know grace. We need the shared experience of grace to say, “Look where sin led. Why would we go there again?” To the larger LGBTQIA community, we need to proclaim grace, and if (when) the Holy Spirit confronts them on that part of their lives, that is the time to figure out their response to grace. And then, we lovingly walk with them and do not judge them for their conclusions.
There are instances in Scripture that offer other kinds of covenant relationships (David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi) but those are not marriage, and do not include the blessing of the “two becoming one flesh.” That is unique to the male-female relationship, and that act is only and ever reserved for the covenant of marriage. The argument from the necessity of children in ancient times is only one reason for the sanctity of the sexual act. The Law, the prophets, Jesus, and Paul all warn against lust and promiscuity. Sex is powerful, and can destroy us if abused, emotionally, physically, and especially spiritually. The abuses of sex in society is as old as humanity, and we cannot say that our current society is so different from the ancient world on issues of sexual impurity. If anything, the Greek and Roman world were closer to our society in this regard than the majority of the 1500 years since the fall of the empire.
Retort, From Mr, Duke.
In Mathew 19:1-12 and Mark 10:1-12 Jesus is not defining marriage as between a man and a woman. He is being questioned on a very divisive question within Judaism: For what reasons may a man divorce his wife. The rabbis spent a lot of time on this issue and had many different teachings on divorce, there were those who taught that a man had the right to divorce his wife if she burned his dinner. The nuance of the argument being created by Jesus is clear in Matthew’s version of the story: Jesus is asked by a group of Pharisees out to get Jesus in trouble (Mt 19:3) “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife FOR ANY CAUSE?” Jesus is about to argue against Moses so he is going to have to give theological cause to go against Judaism’s greatest prophet. He references Genesis 1:27 & 2:24 to show that if two people are married in the eyes of God they are made a single being. If that is an act of God then a note written by a man cannot undo what God has accomplished. He is not commenting on whether gays should be allowed to marry, he is saying that those who have been married cannot be separated.
Jesus’ stance on divorce is VERY PRO WOMAN btw. For a woman in the ancient world to be divorced by her husband meant that she lost all provision. She was forced to return to her father’s house, and this caused great financial strain on the father, jeopardizing the family unit.
You are right that Porneia πορνεία is translated as “sexual immorality”, “unchastity”, “fornication” and also prostitution. In fact, porneia is used to describe male and female shrine prostitutes, but no one is attempting to say that the Bible was pro temple prostitutes. It wasn’t. However, porneia is not a word used to define homosexuals. The argument I am raising in this thread is NOT whether Scripture says homosexuals or heterosexuals can engage in illicit sex, but whether two committed monogamous homosexuals should be accepted by the Church.
I agree with you one hundred percent that someone else’s sinfulness does not give us the right to point a finger in their face and tell them they’re going to hell. Paul is clear that we are all sinners who were lost before Jesus’ faithfulness rescued us
I would like to ask everyone reading this thread a question. I think we are all in agreement that the church must be more loving to homosexuals, but does anyone out there believe that there is room for the church to stop and listen to a homosexual talk about what it is like to know that they are different, and the fear and anxiety that come along with being different, and knowing that they can’t change it?
Form Mr. Prez.
Jesus is not arguing against Moses. He is actually upholding the Law given to Moses against the extra doctirnes that the rabbis had added, such as divorcing for “any reason”, not just for unchastity, or in the other Law-based reasons for divorce, a woman could divorce her husband for lack of care (which would include abuse). Of course Jesus is pro-woman. He looks out for the oppressed all the time, and in today’s world, he is looking out for gays and lesbians. However, I’m not sure where you studied the definition of “porneia”, but I’d be happy to gather a list of 1st century rabbinical writings describing homosexual practice with the word “porneia”. I’m not saying that the church should reject homosexuals, I’m saying that the church cannot endorse an activity that Scripture clearly defines as sinful. To do so would be a flagrant violation of the third commandment for we would say that God is blessing something that God rejects as sin, and that Jesus died on the cross to put to death. We can lovingly accept homosexuals, just like we accept habitual unrepentant materialists, rascists, sexists, slanderers, gossips, and self-righteous prigs.
We can and should listen to people’s struggles, stories, and sins, and then not judge them for it. We should support people in homosexual relationships to see the grace they have in Christ without the threat of making them give up their loved ones. But I hold people accountable for their actions. Someone who was abused as a child is more prone to be a child-abuser, without being able to help those urges. But I’m not going to say that beating up a child is okay, and I’m not going to throw them out of the church when I find out about it. I also concur that there is a vast difference between promiscuity and monogamous homosexual relationships. One reflects a lifestyle of ungodliness, and the other is the struggle, and perhaps acceptance, of a sin while still trying to be faithful. There are times when God may say to us (like God said to Paul), “My grace is sufficient for you.” But that does not mean God all of a sudden blesses our sin, it means He recognizes our weakness and inability to defeat sin in our lives, and that’s why He took care of the sin on the cross.
From Mr Duke.
But Jesus doesn’t defend Moses. He says, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you…BUT” (Mark 10:5-6). Jesus then goes on to evoke the pre-Law state of marriage. Jesus is not arguing against a tradition of the Pharisees because Mark would have noted this by mentioning the “tradition of the elders” as he does elsewhere (see Mark 7:3).
Now, if porneia means “homosexual” then this debate becomes moot because Matthew 19:9 says, “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for PORNEIA, and marries another commits adultery.” So if porneia means homosexual, then Jesus just said that the only grounds for divorce is if your wife is a lesbian. Of course “homosexual” is not the definition, “fornication” is. But as I have said before, we are not discussing fornication. Heterosexual sex outside of marriage is called porneia. Bestiality is called porneia, shrine prostitution is called porneia, and same-sex relations are called porneia. We are not discussing if it is okay for gays to have casual sex. We are discussing a committed monogamous married relationship. Should we define THAT as porneia? Some say yes. I say no.
Concerning your last comment, would you feel comfortable sitting in a church where the people around you didn’t approve of your lifestyle? You sound like a great pastor and I would be proud to attend your church, and I’m certain that you treat every person who walks through your door with respect and dignity, but people in the pews can be mean. Sometimes church can feel like high school all over again.
From Mr. Prez.
I did not mean to imply that porneia meant only homosexuality, but that homosexual practice is included in the larger picture of sexual impurity; it is only one example of porneia (others being adultery, promiscuity, bestiality, incest, etc.). Homosexual practice would be grounds for divorce.
I concede that the issue is mucky, and there are shades of grey. This, of course, is why we lean so entirely on grace. It is also true that people in the pews can be mean, as though Jesus came for the healthy. That is also why I teach grace so heavily. But for the grace of God, we’re all lost. How then can we judge? Thanks for your kind words and for the lively debate. I also concede I may be wrong on these issues. Then, when we all come into the Kingdom, it will be my distinct pleasure to serve those whom I have offended.
From Mr. Duke.
I’ve have had a great time talking with you, Mr. Prez. It is so great to be able to talk about these issues with people who are able to have a rational thoughtful discussion. Your congregation is blessed to have you. By the way, Mr. Prez, thanks for having the guts to discuss this openly. A lot of pastors wouldn’t touch this discussion with a ten foot pole. It’s great to see a man of the cloth willing to get knee deep in it.