For Quick Access--
Moreover I saw under the sun that in the place of justice, wickedness was there, and in the place of righteousness, wickedness was there as well. I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for he has appointed a time for every matter, and for every work. --Ecclesiates 3:16-17, NRSV
Does the Bible Condemn Homosexuality?
Gay people have been bashed by believers with Bibles for a long time. Any gay person who grew up in a fundamentalistic household (as I did) can quote you the verses used. They, as I, went to church and heard about the wickedness of Sodom, the revulsion of Paul, and the lewdness of homosexuals today.
Since that time, I have read many books which seek to reinterpret those verses and stories: among others, Nancy Wilson, in Our Tribe; John Boswell, in Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality; Mel White, in Stranger at The Gate. I have been very impressed by their arguments, captivated by their stories, and filled with hope by their fervor to serve God and minister Christ to gay and lesbian people everywhere. But still I had a problem with accepting my homosexuality. Call it latent fundamentalism if you will, but there were parts of my head and gut that just didn't accept what these capable people were saying.
When I studied the Bible as a teenager and young adult, it seemed that the doctrines of the Churches of Christ fit together as securely as the pieces of a Shaker rocker. That's the gut and head feeling I was searching for, and I just wasn't getting it. Not completely, that is. When I first re-examined the story of Sodom (and I believe it was while reading Rev. Wilson's book) the absurdity of using Sodom against homosexuality was immediately apparent. I could never go back to understanding Sodom as a story against homosexuals. It just isn't there, folks! To condemn homosexuals with the story of Sodom, you have to import the idea that it's wrong in the first place. Otherwise, a true reading of the text misses that idea altogether. That's the kind of doctrine that appealed to my fundamentalistic heart: It's not right there in the Bible to see!
So why couldn't the rest of the condemnations of homosexuality in the Bible be so easy to explain away? Why couldn't I just accept the arguments of good, honest people who clearly see that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality? The answer was my stubborn Church of Christ heart. Intellectually and emotionally, it just read those books and then hopped back onto the porch to rock. After all, that rocker was very well constructed. So after much time and thought, I decided to state the case against homosexuality in the worse possible way: What if the Bible did condemn it? What then? And I believe I've come up with an answer.
Here is my basic argument:
Premise One: The biblical condemnations of homosexuality should be obeyed only if they are based on a realistic view of life.
Premise Two: The biblical condemnations of homosexuality are not based on a realistic view of life.
Conclusion: Therefore, they should not be obeyed.
If you speak logic-speak, you can plainly see that the above argument is sound (the conclusion follows logically from the premises). No one can attack the argument itself. What I am going to do in the rest of this page is to show that the premises are true. This is the only area where people who disagree with the conclusion can argue with me. You can only deny one or both of the premises. If you grant the truth of both premises, however, you must accept the conclusion logically (with the head).
But I know it won't be that easy. I am sure that there will be plenty of people who will deny one or both. Follow me then, to the sparring grounds . . .
Does A Realistic View Hurt Christianity?
What is this magical phrase--A Realistic View of Life? Can it solve all the problems of the weary traveller who just wants to sit and rock a spell? In big words, it's a hermenuetical principle. Hermenuetics is the process of applying the Bible (or any other text, for that matter) to our everyday life. So a hermenuetical principle is a guideline for making the Bible relevent to modern society.
Some examples: The principle of literalism tells you that when the Bible commands something to be done, you must do it. Despite what you think, not many people use that principle exclusively--there aren't many people who are trying to put their hand into Jesus' side wound (well, maybe spiritually they are, but not literally!), and that is a literal command you can read in the Bible (John 20:27). Most people would modify the principle of literalism with a principle of negation by context: in the context of that command, we see that Jesus was talking to Thomas, and not to people in general. The phrase, "a realistic view of life," is refering to a hermenuetical principle of correspondance with reality, and this is what I mean by it:
Faith must not be void of reality, but related to reality. Man ought not to have to believe simply, without verification. His statements should be proved and tested by contact with reality, within the present-day horizon of experience of man and society, and thus be covered by the concrete experience of reality. Hans Kung, On Being a Christian, trans. Edward Quinn, Garden City, NY (Doubleday, 1976): Page #.
As rational human beings, we can observe the world and see the way it really is, eventually. For thousands of years, the great majority of us thought that the world was flat. We have, as a species, made some observations since that time, and discovered that this is not so. Also, for a few decades, we have thought that the solar system contained nine planets. A tenth has been discovered recently, and our minds have changed on the matter. Finally, when we were confronted by people who ran screaming around in graveyards naked, cutting themselves and chasing other people, we used to say that they were possessed by demons and pray over them. Now we say that they are paranoid schizophrenics and give them medication. I'm not here to say which of the final two solutions is better. (Who's to say that all that prayer didn't result in someone finally figuring out the necessary chemicals to give to someone afflicted with paranoid schizophrenia?) The important thing is this: while our brains are limited in their power, we can occasionally figure out the way things are. The common effort to figure out the way things are is called science, and it is a legitimate way of studying God and Creation; if God didn't want us to use our brains, why did God let us evolve them? Therefore, scientific information is the bedrock of what I mean by a realistic view of life.
People might object to this, quoting Hebrews 11:1--"Faith is the conviction of things not seen!" If faith must rely on science for its validity, then it is not faith! Not true. There are two components of a message of faith, the message and the sign. In the book of Deuteronomy, a method of evaluating prophetic messages is given. The prophet would speak a message ("Repent of your sins" --unverifiable) and give a sign ("An earthquake will happen tommorrow" --verifiable). If the sign did not come to pass, then the message was to be rejected. When faith makes verifiable statements, then it is our responsibility to verify them through science. A faith in a six-day creation in the face of the scientific evidence to the contrary is blind and senseless. It offends the human mind and He who created that human mind. We must reinterpret the creation stories in the Bible or the human mind will reject the Bible. A faith in things not seen is not a faith against things most clearly seen. When faith makes statements about things we cannot verify (such as spirituality and isolated historical events like Jesus' resurrection), then we must have faith. When faith makes statements about things we can verify (evolution, other historical events like the reign of David), then we must examine the statements for truth. (Indeed, the small number of witnesses to the resurrection of Christ has forever placed this historical event into the realm of unverifiability--it will always be a matter of faith.)
But there's more to a realistic view of life than science. For many centuries, women have been considered secondary to men. A relationship of convenience which developed during prehistoric times became deeply enfranchised in human society, to the point of excluding women from owning property and voting. Women were expected to remain homemakers and baby machines. Today such ideas are repugnant. A person cannot be discounted and discriminated against because that person is female. The same is true of skin color. In America, wars have been fought over the rights of human beings who have a different race than the people in power. A person cannot be discounted and discriminated against because that person is black.
Yet the subordination of blacks and females was and still is justified by certain passages from the Bible. In the early chapters of Genesis, it is clear that the highest personal goal for a man was to produce a son, for this allowed him to participate in the image of God (Gen. 5:1-3). In the geneology of chapter 5, women are excluded because they are only the earth from which the Creator Man forms a man in his own image. Is it any wonder that most feminists have no love for the Bible? Slavery, while not so deeply entrenched in Biblical doctrines, was still condoned and accepted in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. Slaves are told to "not be concerned" about being slaves. "In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God." (I Cor 7:21-24) Today, in our society, wiser heads have prevailed. Women are no longer considered inferior to men. Slavery is unacceptable as a societial instrument. Even though the Bible allowed such things, they have been set aside--in part, because many Christians realized that the deeper currents of the Biblical message reject such ideas. "There is no longer slave or free, there is no male or female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)
Therefore, science is not the only contributor to a realistic view of life. The wisdom of society, when in agreement to the core doctrines of the Bible, is a potent indicator of reality. So where do we stand with the first premise? I'll restate it:
The biblical condemnations of homosexuality should be obeyed only if they are based on a realistic view of life.
By describing "a realistic view of life" as one informed by science, societal wisdom, and the core doctrines of the Bible, I believe that any reasonable person can see the truth of this statement. And Christianity is done no more harm than a tree is done by the pruning shears. Women and African-Americans have been freed from the binding restrictions of the biblical commands against them in order to flourish for the kingdom. Can we hope the same thing for gay people?
Is Condemning Homosexuality Unrealistic?
The second premise of my argument is as follows:
Premise Two: The biblical condemnations of homosexuality are not based on a realistic view of life.
By this I mean that the three elements of a realistic view of life--science, societal wisdom, and the core doctrines of the Bible--do not support the biblical condemnation of homosexuality. I think this also is easy to see.
Science has increasingly validated homosexuality as a natural part of being human. After decades of trying to cure homosexuality, the American Psychiatric Association eliminated homosexuality from their catagories of mental illnesses. Zoologists have recognized this "unnatural" behavior occuring naturally all throughout the animal kingdom. Biologists have produced evidence that homosexuality is encoded in the genetic material that gives us shape and form. There is not a single bit of biological or psychological evidence that homosexuality is a malfunction or perversion of the natural human being.
How about societal wisdom? Well, it depends on which society
you're asking for wisdom. Most religious societies would condemn
gay people out of hand. Yet there are other portions of society
that recognize the reality of the existance of gays and deals
with them. Other portions of society openly embrace gay people
and encourage them to grow. Which society should we listen to?
This is why I asked you to consider that societal wisdom must
be informed by the core doctrines of the Bible.
Wisdom Excels Folly as Light Excels Darkness
This is a quote from Ecclesiates-Be wise!
Joseph Nobles
Copyright © 1999, Joseph Nobles
URL: http://geocities.datacellar.net/WestHollywood/Village/2183
All biblical quotations from the New Revised Standard Version.