This is an article from

Theology Wales:
the Church and Homosexuality

 

 

Full contents:

Guest Editor's Introduction
- Rev Jenny Wigley

Presidential Address
- Archbishop Barry Morgan

Same-sex relationships
- Bishop Richard Harries

The freeing of Anglican identities - Rev Dr Lorraine Cavanagh

Facing up to our differences
- Rev Jean Mayland

Same-sex unions
- Rev Dr Will Strange

Homosexuality - the biblical evidence
- Rev Prof DP Davies

Engaging with the scriptures
- Canon Robert Paterson

A view from the pews
- Tim Heywood

 

Homosexuality - The Biblical Evidence

Rev Professor DP Davies

D P Davies was for thirteen years Pro Vice Chancellor of University of Wales, Lampeter, where he has been John James Professor of Theology since 1986. He has served on a number of Boards and Commissions of the British Council of Churches and the Council of Churches for Wales and has also been an advisor on religious broadcasting to both the BBC and the ITC. He is the author of a number of books and articles and Chairman of the New Testament and Apocrypha Translation Panel of Y Beibl Cymraeg Newydd.

The controversy over the ordination of practising homosexuals to the priesthood/episcopate, like the debate over the ordination of women to the priesthood/episcopate, brings into sharp focus the authority of Scripture in relation to the discussion of doctrinal and moral issues in today's Church. Is what Scripture has to say on a particular issue - for example, homoerotic (I use this term to avoid misleading anachronism, since 'homosexual' is a relatively modern term and in popular parlance refers to a male whose sexual orientation is to other males) acts, the sole determining factor in establishing the Church's attitude on the matter? Or is Scripture to be set alongside other sources of authority, such as Church tradition (the Catholic and Orthodox position) or human reason (the characteristically Anglican view) or the experience of individual Christians or the Christian community, however defined (the position of the spiritual heirs of John Wesley and of various 'liberation' theologies today)?

It is in all our interests to consult Scripture and to take serious note of what is said in Scripture as we grapple with controversial doctrinal and moral issues.

For those evangelical Christians who take the classical Protestant stance of sola Scriptura (Scripture is the sole source of authority for the Christian) the matter is comparatively simple.All we have to do is to establish the plain meaning of Scripture and accept it. But is it that simple? As we all know, the plain meaning of Scripture is not always easily discerned, nor does Scripture always speak with a single voice. This immediately leads us into another debate - how should we interpret Scripture? Should we restrict ourselves to the plain, literal meaning, or may we open ourselves to the guidance of the Spirit that promises to lead us to a fuller understanding of what Scripture is saying, the so-called sensus plenior?

The challenge posed by such questions will become only too apparent in the course of our discussion, so it is only fair that I should begin by indicating where I myself stand. I accept Scripture as the authoritative Word of God, but I also believe that we should set alongside this the accumulated wisdom of the Church and of Christians down the ages and around the world. I also believe that there is a place for human reason in wrestling with the meaning of Scripture and its role in contemporary debates within the Church. Furthermore, I adhere to the methodology of liberation theology and therefore believe that Scripture must be critically interpreted in the light of experience and that experience too must be subject to the critical scrutiny of Scripture in a kind of hermeneutical dialogue. I am also acutely aware that none of us approaches Scripture without bias. We are all creatures of our cultural and ideological background. I therefore accept that my own prejudices will soon be evident to readers of this essay.

One thing, however, is clear. Whatever view of authority within the Church we hold, Scripture is universally believed to be authoritative.

It is in all our interests to consult Scripture and to take serious note of what is said in Scripture as we grapple with controversial doctrinal and moral issues.

At the very least Scripture is a guide, even if we do not all subscribe to the view that it is the only guide. We need therefore to establish what Scripture has to say - in this instance on the question of homoerotic practices.

• Look again at the author's description of where he himself stands on the authority of Scripture. Where do you stand?

II

In turning now to the text of Scripture, two important preliminary points need to be made. First, it is remarkable, and perhaps significant, that Scripture has comparatively little to say directly about homoerotic acts. There are two basic texts in Leviticus, which very largely determine the attitude not only of the Hebrew Scriptures, but of the New Testament as well, and then there are three passages in the letters of Paul. We shall consider each of these texts in turn, but the paucity of them, compared, for example, with the number of texts, which deal with social justice, is noteworthy. It may be an indication that homoerotic activity was comparatively rare in the Jewish world, in contrast to the Greek world, for example. This view is, I think, supported by the texts themselves, as their immediate context makes clear. Homoerotic activity is regarded by Jewish writers as characteristic of Gentile nations.

The second general point that needs to be remembered is that the whole concept of sexuality is foreign to the world of Scripture. Like the notion of sexual orientation and indeed homosexuality, it is a modern concept. Scripture simply does not consider the possibility widely accepted in the modern world that a particular human being may naturally be inclined to be homosexual. For Scripture, sexual activity makes sense only in the context of procreation and is therefore natural only between male and female of the same species.

Scripture is not concerned with the psychology of sex, nor even for that matter with the emotional state of those who engage in sexual activity. It is not concerned with these questions because they simply had not arisen in the cultural world of the authors of the various books that make up the Bible. Such approaches to sex and sexuality are entirely modern.

• How much does it matter that the Bible has so little to say on this subject?

III

The basic text then is Leviticus 18:22, which may be read alongside Leviticus 20:13. Both texts are found in the so-called Holiness Code, which is concerned with the purity of the nation. The nation must avoid those things that defile other nations who do not follow YHWH, the God of Israel. Among the things that defile listed in ch.18 of Leviticus are incest, sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman, adultery, child sacrifice (the odd one out in this list), homoerotic sexual acts between males, and bestiality. Much the same list is repeated in ch.20, where it is stated that the punishment for such deeds is death. The death penalty applies to both partners, even though from our perspective one of the partners would be regarded as an innocent victim - for example, an animal assaulted sexually by a human. The whole series is addressed to the male, as if the female counts for nothing, and this strikes a discordant note in today's society; but even if the male is held responsible, in each case (incest, adultery etc) the other partner must also die, since both have been defiled by the 'unnatural' sexual union and purity demands that all those defiled must be purged. What Leviticus 18:22 actually says is this: 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable' (NIV). The word 'detestable' ('abomination' is another translation) here signifies something unclean that must be cut out. Not surprisingly therefore Leviticus 20:13 says, '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 heads' (NIV).

The context then is the need for purity, the need to avoid physical defilement and to cut out that which is physically unclean. The emphasis is not on what we would consider moral integrity. In that sense it is not really a 'moral' issue. The prohibition is also very specifically directed at the sexual act of anal penetration - this is what is meant by 'as one lies with a woman'. This also suggests that the root of the problem was the 'unnatural' nature of the act in that one of the male partners was thought to assume the role of a woman. In sexual intercourse the natural role of the male was believed to be superordinate and active, while the female was expected to be subordinate and passive. So insofar as Leviticus gives us any guidance the text is saying that acts of anal penetration are prohibited. It makes no reference to homoerotic acts between two females or indeed homoerotic acts between males short of anal penetration, nor is it concerned with what we might call the 'relationship' between two individuals of the same gender. It is simply and solely concerned with the prohibition of a specific act which brings defilement not only on the two individuals concerned but on the whole community. For that reason the impurity must be removed.

In applying this text to today's world we would, I think, have to say that it is of little help to us in determining the moral status of a homosexual relationship between two males unless or until such a relationship involves acts of anal penetration. Nor I think would anyone, not even the most rabid fundamentalist, argue that those guilty of such acts should be put to death. The act is, moreover, seen as equivalent to incest and bestiality, neither of which is acceptable in today's world, as well as to adultery and intercourse with a menstruant, both of which are widely tolerated, even if frowned upon, today.

• Should the rules still apply even if we no longer accept the reasons for which they were made?
• Should they still apply even if we no longer apply the punishments which were attached to them?

IV

These two texts determined the attitude of Jews to homoerotic acts for centuries. It is hardly surprising therefore to find that the apostle Paul, who was brought up and trained as a strict Jew, shares this general approach. It is interesting, incidentally, that Jesus appears to have nothing to say on the subject. The likelihood is that he too shared the same approach. This suggests that those on the eccentric fringe of scholarship, who have claimed that Jesus was 'homosexual' on the grounds that he remained (as far as we know) unmarried, are wide of the mark. Jesus' unmarried status is probably to be interpreted as a vow of celibacy undertaken for the sake of his mission.

As far as the New Testament evidence goes we must rely on Paul alone and on three texts in particular, namely Romans 1:18-32 (the key passage), I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:9-10.

We may start with I Corinthians 6:9-10 where Paul lists a number of 'wicked' persons, who will not 'inherit the kingdom of God'. The list includes two Greek words that represent the passive and active partners in anal intercourse. The second term ( arsenokoitai) is a rare word and its form strongly suggests that in using (possibly coining) it Paul has the Leviticus prohibition of anal penetration in mind. It is also possible that the combination of these two technical terms indicates that Paul is referring to the fairly common Greek practice of pederasty, so that the passive term ( malakoi) represents an adolescent boy (possibly a prostitute) and the active an older man. If so, this would not be a condemnation of homosexuality as such, but of a very specific form of sexual activity. The other point to make is that the list also includes 'idolaters, adulterers. thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers', so in any discussion of the propriety or otherwise of ordaining practising homosexuals we should not concentrate unduly on Paul's disapproval of homoerotic behaviour in this particular text. The context also suggests that such behaviour is linked in Paul's mind, as it was in the minds of Jews generally, with the idolatry characteristic of Gentile nations.

Arsenokoitai , the word used for the active partner in anal intercourse, is also found in I Timothy 1:9- 10 in a not dissimilar list of 'lawbreakers and rebels', whose conduct 'is contrary to the sound doctrine'. 'of the glorious gospel'. The same list also includes 'murderers, adulterers . slave traders, liars and perjurers'. As with the text in I Corinthians this text in I Timothy is of limited help to those who must determine who may or may not be ordained in today's Church since it covers such a wide range of human wrongdoing and is hardly a specific prohibition directed against the ordination of practising homosexuals. Indeed, on the face of it, neither of these texts takes the form of a prohibition. They represent rather Paul's view of the kind of conduct, which is incompatible with being a Christian of any kind.

By far the most important text in Paul (and indeed in the whole Bible) is Romans 1:18-32, and in particular verses 26 and 27, which read: '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' (NIV).

The context is Paul's lengthy demonstration that the whole of humanity is in the power of sin, Jews as well as Gentiles. This then enables him to proclaim that salvation is available to all, Gentiles as well as Jews, without distinction. Some have argued that in this passage in Romans Paul has Gentiles in mind and that the reference to homoerotic activity in these two verses is highlighting conduct believed to be characteristic of the idolatrous Gentile world. This may be so, though others have argued that Paul is not here singling out the Gentiles as such. In any case, no single human being can be complacent, since all have sinned. Incidentally, the shameful conduct Paul alludes to here is presented more as the punishment or consequence of (original?) sin than a sin in itself. It is evidence of the sinful condition of humanity. God has punished humanity by abandoning humans to their fate. As a consequence they engage,women as well as men, in all manner of activity contrary to nature and therefore contrary to the order of creation - this is the force of the reference to them receiving 'in themselves the due penalty for their perversion'. The reference to females engaging in homoerotic activity is unique in the Bible and, like Paul's exposition on marriage and divorce in I Corinthians 7, shows that Paul was far ahead of his time in recognising the equal status of women in God's order, even if here their equal status as sinners.

That Paul condemns homoerotic acts of sexual intercourse (again the reference seems to be to specific acts) as sinful is beyond doubt. There is little to be gained in attempting to make Paul say something that would today be regarded as more politically correct. In adopting this attitude to such conduct Paul unquestionably reflects his Jewish background.

Similar disapproval of homoerotic activity is found in Paul's near contemporary, the Jewish philosopher Philo, who saw such activity as a denial of natural human sexual instincts and capitulation to unnatural lust. It was associated with idolatry and with pederasty. Philo also believed that, unless it was stamped out, such conduct would lead to the extinction of the human race! Paul no doubt shared these opinions.

• How does your understanding compare with that of the New Testament as regards the relationships between women and men, between people of different social status, and between people of different faiths?
• Does this make a difference in interpreting the particular texts examined here?

V

We have established then that, following the prohibition of such acts in Leviticus, Paul specifically condemns acts of homoerotic intercourse. No more, no less. The question we now have to address is this: If Paul's views on homosexual conduct, and indeed on what is believed to be 'natural',were so strongly conditioned by his cultural background, are these views of any direct relevance today in a vastly different cultural context, which has a very different view of what is natural in terms of sexual relationships? We might also ask if there is other teaching in the Bible, which is more directly relevant to our contemporary attempts to reach a proper understanding of sexual orientation (to use the modern term) than these specific prohibitions or condemnations of anal or other penetrative acts of homoerotic intercourse.

For evangelical Christians who believe in the absolute authority of the Bible the answer to the first question is simple. If the Bible condemns such acts as sinful, then they are sinful. There is no room for debate, no matter how different our culture is from that of the Bible. But would such Christians call for the death penalty to be imposed on convicted homosexuals? Would they defend the exclusively patriarchal attitude to human sexual relations that informs almost everything (Paul is a notable exception here) the Bible has to say on the subject? Even Christians who set tradition alongside Scripture as their authority would give much the same answer to my question since Church tradition has consistently condemned homosexual practices, but this too, others would argue, is largely due to cultural conditioning. Appealing to reason in addition to Scripture and tradition would introduce the insights of modern psychology into the debate. Such insights would not necessarily determine the mind of the Church today, but they would suggest that we must take full account of the cultural divide between the world of Scripture and our world today and of contemporary understandings of what it is to be human. Finally, if we read Scripture critically in the light of our experience as individual Christians and the experience of the believing community we are seriously challenged. All of us know practising homosexuals who are devout Christians. Moreover, the believing community has been faithfully and effectively served by men and women whose sexual orientation (and in some cases practice) has been 'homosexual'? Are we to deny that such people are faithful servants of God? Or should we hold the line and say that in terms of the teaching of Scripture their ministry has been fatally flawed? At the very least we must say that those who practise celibacy in a homosexual relationship are not touched by the Scriptural disapproval of homoerotic acts. Indeed, it seems to me that since penetrative homoerotic intercourse is the only sexual activity prohibited in Scripture, physical expressions of mutual love, including sexual acts that fall short of penetrative intercourse, are allowed.

Further food for thought may be derived from exploring possible answers to our second question. In this connection I suggest there are three major biblical themes that have a direct bearing on our discussion: creation, the sinful condition of humanity and divine grace or love.

First, even if they are not seen as historical accounts, the Creation stories at the beginning of Genesis are recognised by most Christians as setting out the norms of what it is to be a human, including a sexual, being. The norm is quite clear. Male and female are intended for union with each other for the purposes of procreation and companionship. This is what God intended. We then have to ask if this norm is to be regarded as exclusive and universal. In other words, is any other form of sexual union, e.g., between two males or two females, which in terms of the Genesis accounts would be 'abnormal', allowed? It may be helpful to think more widely of what we mean by 'normal' and 'abnormal'. For example, the norm (what God intended) for humans is to be physically and mentally healthy or whole, but our experience is that sadly not all humans are whole in this sense. We speak of physically or mentally handicapped people, but unlike our ancestors we do not see their condition as a punishment from God. Nor do we say that they are any the less human because they are less than fully healthy. The same issue of norms arises in the debate over divorce and the remarriage of divorced people while their former partners are still living. We no longer exclude such persons from the Christian community - indeed, they may now be admitted to the ordained ministry and in some cases become bishops. Is this right or is it wrong? We must beware of defining norms in too rigid a way. We must also beware of a double standard whereby something which is permitted in the case of Christians generally is not allowed in the case of those who are ordained.

Secondly, Scripture is absolutely clear in saying that all human beings, without distinction, are sinners. Our common human experience confirms this. Since then all are sinners, including those who seek ordination, we might next ask if there are any particular sins which should debar someone from ordination. Perhaps a prior question is to ask what precisely we mean by sin in this context. Is homosexual orientation is in itself a sin? Few of us would say that it is. But are certain sexual acts between two persons of the same gender sinful? The Bible (i.e. Leviticus and Paul) condemn as sinful acts of homoerotic intercourse, but they do so in the context of condemning a whole variety of sinful acts. On all three occasions that Paul refers to the subject he makes it clear that this is only one among a number of different forms of behaviour incompatible with being a Christian. This suggests that it is difficult to justify singling out this one sin as automatically disqualifying someone from the ordained ministry of the Church.

My final point is that just as the Bible teaches that all humans are sinners, so too the message of the New Testament is that no sinner, however grievous the sin, is beyond the reach of the grace of a loving God. The Church today lives under grace and not under law. We must therefore guard against adopting an exclusively legalistic approach to moral issues.

In relation to the question with which we began, namely the ordination of practising homosexuals to the priesthood/episcopate, there is now an urgent need for the Church under the grace of God and in Christian love to reach a common mind. In this debate the evidence of Scripture will be one element, a significant, but not the only element. It is nonetheless clear from the way the debate has been conducted hitherto that the attitudes of particular groups of within the Church to homosexual orientation and practice are very largely predetermined by what they see as the Church's source of authority. Where they see this as Scripture alone or a combination of Scripture and Church tradition, their attitudes tend to be negative, but where they recognise a dispersed authority, as traditionally Anglicans have done, the question becomes more open. I fear that the process on which we have embarked will be protracted and painful.

• Creation - sin - grace: how can looking at the bigger Scriptural picture help us in the way we respond to gay and lesbian people?