Lesbians, Gays and the Bible

Why bother with what the Bible says?

For many people the Bible is not a book they want to read, or give authority to. Even for many Christians the Bible is just one source of authority which must be taken into consideration along with tradition, personal conscience and reason. However, the Bible is seen as one of the major sources for our culture; based as it is on the thoughts and principles of Judaism and Christianity. During the debate to lower the age of consent for gay men in February 1994 in the British House of Commons, the Bible was cited by many speakers. For many Christians from evangelical or conservative backgrounds the Bible is a major cornerstone of their faith, and a great stumbling block when trying to reconcile spirituality and sexuality. For these reasons it is essential to know that the Bible does not have to be seen as a book of condemnation for us. We can argue back with those who seek to condemn us and use their own arguments and methods to win.

The Sodom and Gomorrah Story

In the book of Genesis (Chapter 19) the story is told of two visitors to the city of Sodom, who were in fact angels in disguise, visiting the house of Lot - a Jewish, and hence foreign, inhabitant of the city. The story goes:

"Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old - surrounded the house. They called out to Lot 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them'. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind them saying: 'No, my friends, don't do this wicked thing......'"

After this Lot offers his daughters to appease the crowd. Eventually the angels step in and manage to defeat the mob. Later on in the story, Sodom is destroyed because of the actions of the inhabitants of the city.

It is interesting to note that Lot is portrayed as the good man, the spiritual one, and yet his actions of offering his daughters to the crowd are reported without comment! To approve of this is to approve of rape!

To say the city was destroyed because of homosexuality is misleading and ignores other parts of the Bible and a long tradition of interpretation of these texts. Firstly the Book of Isaiah (1:10 & 3:9) and Ezekiel (16:49) claim that social injustice and oppression of the poor was the root cause. Other parts of the Bible say that it was the city's treatment of visitors which was wrong. In the ancient world it was imperative in most cultures to treat visitors with respect and honour. Gang raping them would be quite silly! Jesus says, in Luke's Gospel, that Sodom was destroyed because of inhospitality (Lk 10:12).

This interpretation continued in the Early Church and also in Jewish interpretations. The Midrash, a Jewish commentary, and an Early Church theologian called Origen, both state that it was this breaking of the rules on how to treat visitors that got Sodom into trouble.

Therefore, it can be argued from the Bible itself that the destruction of Sodom was because of oppression of the poor and mistreatment of outsiders; nothing to do with Lesbians and Gays. Feminist theologians will also want to question Lot's apparent willingness to hand his daughters over to a mad crowd to face certain death. To claim that trying to commit gang rape on strangers is equivalent to consenting gay or lesbian sex is to fly in the face of what the Bible itself says.

The Book of Leviticus

This book in the Bible is concerned with giving huge chunks of the Law; observed today by Orthodox Jews. It is concerned with stating what behaviour and moral codes separate out the Jewish people from the surrounding nations and is very clear in prohibiting behaviour which was part of the worship of fertility gods and goddesses.

The two passages which are used to condemn us read:-

"Do not lie with a man as with a woman; that is detestable" (18:22)

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own hands"

The questions around this text for us today are quite interesting. Firstly there are very few Christians who take this book seriously. If we are to obey these two passages then we should obey all the book which condemns: cutting men's hair, eating meat with blood in it (eg: rare steak), eating rabbit or certain kinds of seafood (like mussels or shell fish), sexual intercourse during menstruation, cross breeding cattle, and wearing garments made out of more than one material. If we are quite happy to do all of the above, then why on earth should we not be happy being Lesbian or Gay?

An interpretation based on feminist thought would also question the assumptions made in the text. Firstly, they only apply to men! Obviously the writers, having something in common with Queen Victoria, didn't think women did things like this! Secondly, they assume that women take the passive role in sex and that this is inherently demeaning. The tone of the passage is that if you are passive in penetrative intercourse you become less of a man and more like a woman. This is seen as being shameful. Apart from the fact that we do an awful lot more with other in bed than penetration, the passage assumes that women are less equal than men. This passage is sexist and irrelevant. Also it concerns laws and behaviours that most people would not wish, or see any need, to keep today.

The Book of Romans

This book is written by St Paul who was a Jewish convert to Christianity and who devoted his life to spreading the Christian message to non-Jews. He travelled around the Roman Empire preaching and founding churches. He then wrote to them regularly giving advice on how to live a Christian life in a non-Christian secular world. Some of these letters have been preserved in the Bible.

Paul's point in the Book of Romans is to show that God has made salvation possible for all humanity and starts out by highlighting the need the human race has for this salvation. He speaks, at some length, on his perceived evils of the world and in this context his words on Lesbians (well done, you've made it into the Bible at last - 1,000 years after the first mention of Gay men) and gay men appear:

"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." (1:26-27)

Much has been written on what Paul might have meant here and many folk go to great lengths to show that Paul did not mean homosexuality. I think that this is intellectually dishonest. It is obvious that Paul thinks that Lesbian and Gay sex is unnatural. It is also obvious from reading other writings that he thinks that having women preach in church, or to be ministers is wrong, (because it was a woman who led Adam astray in the first place) and that they will only be saved by childbirth (1 Tim 2:9-15). Paul states in his first letter to the Corinthian church (11:14) that it is unnatural for men to have long hair! In this last passage Paul uses the same Greek words (para phusin) as he does when condemning Lesbians and Gays.

If traditional churches wish us to follow Paul's words about Lesbians and Gays then they will also have to condemn men with long hair, women ministers, and state that women will only get to Heaven if they have babies (I think someone should tell Mother Teresa!). Until the main Christian churches start preaching Paul properly I see no reason why we can't say that he was biased by the prevailing sexism and homophobia of his background and his words should be taken with a pinch of salt (albeit a very large one!).

The Letters to the Corinthian Church and to Timothy

The church in Corinth had written to Paul for advice on some particular issues and whilst the original letter is lost, Paul's answer has been preserved for us in the Bible. Likewise, the letter to Timothy was advice from Paul to a young Overseer, or Bishop, who was responsible for spreading the Christian message. In both letters Paul uses a word to describe gay men which is very unusual and which modern Bibles cannot agree on how to translate into English.

The word (arsenokoitai) appears in 1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Tim 1:9-10. Many think it just means homosexual men. If this is the case then the arguments presented above about the passage in Romans still apply here. However, some scholars, notably the late Professor John Boswell of Yale University, have said that the word refers to sacred prostitutes. These would have been young men who worked in the Temples of the Fertility Gods popular in the ancient world. Their function was to play the part of the god whilst the worshipper/client had sex with them. This was supposed to ensure a good harvest and was seen as a form of worship! Obviously Paul would not recommend such interesting worship services to those who were committed to following the life and example of Jesus.

Conclusion

To say the Bible condemns Lesbians and Gays and should be followed today, is to oversimplify a complex issue. Parts of the Bible do seem to condemn us but, when compared with other, equally problematic and often sexist passages, it is clear that the phrase, "the Bible says" is not a sufficient argument for anything. When dealing with the Bible we need to be aware of what it says about itself - especially in the story of Sodom and also to see how it has been used over the ages. We need to develop, what feminist theologians call, an interpretation of suspicion which questions how texts either affirm or condemn women, lesbians, gays and other minorities. If they are condemning then they are not, and cannot be, words from a God of Love!