Friends,
I have been called to task for making claims in my previous posts that the passages used to show the sinfulness of homosexuality are taken out of context, without explaining what context they should be taken in. Those who have pointed this out are right to keep me accountable, since baseless claims should be taken with a grain of salt. So let me provide a base for these claims.
Before I do this, however, I must make clear that whether homosexuality is a sin or not, the Christian Church has handled the issue poorly. We have tolerated other "sins" in people, such as lying and lusting and judging others, while remaining completely intolerant of other so called "sins," such as homosexuality and abortion (I place "sins" in quotation marks because the Church has always had a larger vice list than all of the vice lists in the Bible combined). When Jesus was faced with a sinner, he showed them mercy and grace, he showed them acceptance when the religious leaders would not, and he did not ever point out their sin to them (that is excepting the religious leaders, the only group Jesus was ever intolerant of. For more on Jesus' interactions with the religious leaders, go to Jesus and the Religious Leaders in the Bible). So even if homosexuality is a sin it is totally unScriptural to think they should not be allowed to participate in worship or even be allowed to lead a ministry. As Paul says in Romans 3:23, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." If no one is free from sin, then why are some sinners allowed to lead and participate in worship while others are not? No sin, unless it puts others in danger, should exclude someone from the body of believers or exclude someone from leading a ministry. It is because of a person's sin that they need to be included.
Now, to the topic at hand. The most commonly cited passage in Christian circles when it comes to condemning homosexuality is Romans 1:26-27: "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." I do not deny that this passage is referring to same sex behavior, and at first glance seems to be condemning it. But one needs to understand the argument Paul is giving. Paul, the author of the Letter to the Romans, writes his letters in argument form, working to a conclusion. That is why it is extremely dangerous to take a couple of verses from one of his letters in order to formulate a doctrine; because he may be using what may look like a claim of his own, as a rhetorical device to bait his readers in order to prove a point, and that is what is happening here. Not every statement made by Paul is necessarily believed by Paul or meant as a conclusion. Some statements he makes are used to make a point, some are used to create a counterpoint, and so on.
The Roman church, at the time of Paul's writing this letter, consisted of a mix of Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. The church initially was founded by Jewish Christians, but became fully Gentile when Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome. When Claudius died and the Jews were allowed to re-enter Rome, the church accrued a minority Jewish population that had an attitude of superiority over the Gentile Christians, and treated the Gentiles like the Jews were better and more holy than them. Paul was writing the letter mainly to the Jewish Christians in Rome who had this attitude of superiority, purposing to show them that Jews and Gentiles alike have an equal need for Jesus (thus the "all have sinned" passage).
In order to accomplish this task, Paul knew he had to bait them into a feeling of superiority and judgment in order to get his point accross. Knowing that homosexuality was something the Jews considered a sin that was exclusive to Gentiles, he used that as his bait. The latter half of Romans 1 was about inciting the Jewish Christians to a sense of judgment and condemnation so he could set them up for the big blow in Romans 2:1 where he tells them, "Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things." Paul used Romans 1:26-27 to throw the judgment of the Jewish Christians in their face. So, when we use Romans 1:26-27 to judge homosexuality, we are really condemning ourselves.
Romans 1:26-27 does not show us the sinfulness of homosexuality, it shows us the sinfulness of judging the actions of others. Romans 2 proves that to be Paul's purpose. We must not forget the thesis Paul is arguing for in Romans, that can be found in Romans 8:1: "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."
There are only two other passages where the word "homosexual" is included in vice lists of Paul, seemingly condemning homosexuality (a vice list being a list of "sins" that contain no explanation, such as Colossians 3:8). (The following is from the article Homosexuality in the Christian Scriptures) In both passages (I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10), Paul makes up the Greek term arsenokoitai. Prior to Paul, there is no record of this term ever being used. It is made up of the words arsen, meaning man, and koitai, meaning beds. So right away we can see that the term, if it refers to homosexuality, only refers to male homosexuality and not to female homosexuality, so you can see where that would be a problem. It would be strange for Paul to condemn male homosexuality but not female homosexuality.
The other issue is that there was already a common term used during Paul's time for homosexuality: paiderasste. If Paul really intended to refer to homosexuality, he would have used this common term instead of making one up. It was not even until some of the most recent translations that the term "homosexual" was used in these passages. The KJV uses "abusers of themselves with mankind" and "for them that defile themselves with mankind" respectively. During Luther's time, the term was thought to refer to masturbation. During the time of the early church fathers the term was through to denote male temple prostitutes.
I certainly think the term is too vague to know for certain that it refers to homosexuality. Therefore, since homosexuality is only mentioned in the New Testament once (if we take the Greek term in I Corinthians and I Timothy to mean something else) and since that one time has been shown to possess a different meaning than the one often given it, I conclude that nowhere does the New Testament condemn homosexuality. I think it is also of great significance that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality himself.
The final passages that I want to reference are found in the Old Testament, and, more specifically, in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13). I contend that the Leviticus passages were not commandments that if broken separated a person from God, but God's desire for the Jewish people in order to promote their expansion as a people. Leviticus 18:22 states, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." At first this seems very damning. But when we read elsewhere in the passage we find that verse 19 tells a man not to sleep with a woman during her period. I do not think any of us, except maybe the most extreme Christian, would consider this a sin; so why do we use the same chapter to condemn homosexuality. I think the requirements the Lord lays out in this passage are so that the Jewish people could reproduce and grow itself as it was still a small nation. I certainly think much in that passage is good for us to abide by today. But verse 19 and verse 22 are in no way relevant for us today. Those are requirements of the law that no longer apply to God's people.
Moving on to Leviticus 20:13, the passage says, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." This passage certainly sounds condemning of homosexuality, but let me ask you, does any reasonable person think homosexuality is deserving of death? Absolutely not. So, if you are willing to consider that portion of the passage irrelevant for today, why not consider the injunction against homosexuality no longer relevant either. For whatever reason, we pick and choose what commandments we want to subject other people to, without realizing the absurdity of our selectiveness. Leviticus 19:19 calls wearing an outfit with mixed fabric a sin. I don't know about you, but I have very few outfits that are 100% cotton. Am I sinning? I am certainly not.
So, I have covered every passage in Scripture used to condemn homosexuality. Considering there are only five in the entire bible (three if you agree with me about the Greek term in I Corinthians and I Timothy), I do not think it was (or is) a major issue for God. I do not think it should, therefore, be an issue for the Church any longer. It seems to me that the Bible really is clear that being gay is not a sin. What I do know for sure is that whether homosexuality is a sin or not, Jesus loves the homosexual unconditionally, accepts them for who they are, and provides them with the same free grace that I have received for my sins.
Blessings,
-Brandon
