Homosexuality

Something I have said I need to do for a while, is address whether homosexuality is biblically acceptable. There are many who say it is not, and others who say it is, and others who say that those passages are no longer culturally relevant and should be ignored. So I want to see if there is an interpretation of the bible that is acceptable of homosexuality, on a par, say, with having women teaching in church - something that is also clearly disallowed in 1 Cor 14, and yet arguments are made that the clear message of this should not be taken as the real meaning - something I agree with, BTW.

What is very interesting is that, if you search for "homosexual" in the NIV, it only turns up 1 reference. Yes one solitary reference. That is 1 Tim, and we will return to that later. In fact, more research into the Greek root finds a second reference, 1 Cor 6:9, in a similar list - 2 references. And it is a basic rule of biblical translation that the fewer occasions a word appears in context, the less reliable it is to translate. A word that appears twice in the biblical texts, and both times in lists, the translation into what we term homosexuality - as a sexual inclination - we have to be very cautious of.

The starting point is Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 where it ways "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman". Now the context of this is a whole lot of restrictions on sexual behaviour, including not having sexual relationship during a womans period, as well as not with close relationships. But you don't see the church up in arms about these. Actually, a number of these restrictions are covered by incest, a problem that the church seems to be less up in arms about than homosexuality.

The terms of this passage can also be interpreted as a challenge to bi-sexual behaviour - sexual relationships with male and female together. But more so, in the context of the preceding verse about  Molech, the command is about not being sexually promiscuous, not sleeping with anyone and anything, not giving into the demands of sex-worship. And, let me be clear, it is one command amongst a whole range that we tend to ignore - the strict Levitical legal structure is not one which we tend to be bound by these days.

OK, so what of the New Testament - because there are no other references directly in the Old. In Romans 1:26 we have this passage from Paul "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men", referring to Sodom and Gomorrah. So surely this is a condemnation of homosexuality? Surely Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for this? Well the problem with Sodom and Gomorrah was that they were promiscuous, abusive, given over to a worship of sex of all sorts. In the passage from Genesis, they want to have sex with Lots visitors. Actually, this is about a desire to rape and abuse guests - this is not about sexual inclination, it is about abuse and power. It is about people "inflamed with lust". The expression of this was that they wanted sex with everyone, not just their partners.

And sexual abuse - the use of sex as power, the context of rape as being a power act, not a sex act - is wrong. Completely, and utterly. The worship of sex that occurred in Sodom was wrong and an offense to God. And is something that we see a whole lot of in our society today. But this is not about inclination, it is about sex as power, sex as marketing tool. It is something that we are as vulnerable to even if we are not homosexually inclined. It is about sexual lust and sex as power - something that everyone is vulnerable to.

Finally, let us return to 1 Tim 1:10. "the law is made for ... the sexually immorality, those practicing homosexuality..." the context here is again about immorality, abuse and not sexual orientation. There is a possibility that homosexuality in this context is as much about a lifestyle than an orientation - that homosexuals were generally very promiscuous sexually, and it is this that is being condemned.A similar context is provided in 1 Cor. That would fit in with the context of the passage. To assume that because the term "homosexual" is used in our English translation means that it is the same as we understand it is something I tackled in a previous post, and we cannot make that leap. We need to understand context.

So the condemnation of homosexuality in the biblical texts appears to be all in the context of debauchery, promiscuity, sexual freedom and abuse. In the cultural context, homosexuality was a part of a lifestyle that included sexually promiscuous behaviour. The - rather scant - condemnation of homosexual behaviour seems to be always in this context, which would suggest to me that what is really under condemnation is promiscuous, abusive and debauched behaviour.

I am not convinced, that there is here a strong enough argument for rejection of a committed, monogamous, loving, homosexual relationship. At the very least, there would seem to be a whole lot more critical issues to address ahead of this - sexual abuse and promiscuity is a far more significant issue to challenge. And the small number of references suggests to me that this is not a critical matter. Most definitely not an issue that churches should divide on, or make as an important touchstone. Yes there are passages of significance, but it seems that stable relationships are what God wants. I have no doubt that others will disagree.