A C T A U N I V E R S I T A T I S L O D Z I E N S I S
FO LIA A RC H A EO LO G IC A 26, 2009
J . Ha r o l d El l e n s * University o f Michigan
HOMOSEXUALITY IN BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE**
Introduction
T h e m essage o f S cripture on hom osexuality is neither clear n o r co n -clusive. As was tru e o f the G reco-R om an world in general, an d the Hebrew w orld before th a t, the Bible m akes no distinction betw een hom osexual o rien ta tio n and hom osexual behavior. E valuating the biblical im plications regarding either, is therefore, com plex and lim ited to tentative conclusions. M oreover, the developm ent o f the biblical tra d itio n itself evolved th ro u g h a n u m b er o f historical stages. E ach stage reflects the perspective o f its own cultural-historical m om ent. Each such m om en t bears the influence o f significant extra-biblical forces and notions.
Sound and com prehensive evaluation o f the biblical d a ta on h o m o -sexuality, therefore, clearly requires at least th ree procedures: a general survey o f the texts and th eir contexts with a basic exegetical investigation of each, assessm ent o f the cultural-historical perspective o f each, and at least a cursory psycho-theological evaluation o f the w hole scriptural m atter. F o r clarity and precision, how ever, it is o f p rim ary necessity to define the essential term s to be used for hom osexual o rien ta tio n , on the one hand, and hom osexual behavior, on the other.
* D r. Ellens is a retired Professor, Pastor, and Theologian. He is E ditor in Chief Em eritus o f the Journal o f Psychology and Christianity and Executive D irector Em eritus o f the Christian Association for Psychological Studies. He m aintains a private practice in psycho-therapy and may be reached for correspondence at 26705 Farm ington R oad, Farm ington Hills, Michigan 48334 or a t 1150 Delaney Avenue, O rlando, Florida 32806.
** This article was published in this form in Pastoral Psychology, Spring 1998.
Exposition
Definition of Term s
H o m osexuality is the condition in which the process o f m a tu ra tio n does n o t result in an ad u lt w ho is sexually oriented to w ard the opposite sex but tow ard the sam e sex as th a t o f the person concerned (Jennings 1990, p. 529). T his o rien ta tio n is n o t m erely erotic in n atu re but involves the full range o f personality needs for love, u nderstanding, n u rtu re , fellowship, co m panionship, belonging, and certification as a person. E. M ansel P attison falls very sh o rt o f th e m ark a t this point, inadequately an d imprecisely defining hom osexuality merely as a psychological-em otional erotic orientation and a ttra c tio n (P attiso n 1985, p. 319). M oreover, th e difference between heterosexual and hom osexual orien tatio n is n o t easily delineated. Individual hum ans m ay be found at any p oint on the co n tin u u m betw een the two extrem es o f p re d o m in a n t hom osexual o r heterosexual o rien ta tio n and need. Bisexual o rien ta tio n is apparently a m anifest need o r p otential in some hu m an s, as well. T here are some reasons to believe the rep o rts th a t a b o u t 7% o f A m erican m ales have clear preferences fo r hom osexual experiences and 2% are exclusively hom osexual in o rien ta tio n th ro u g h o u t life.
It is im p o rta n t to distinguish between hom osexuality as the orien tatio n and condition o f personal hom osexual identity, on the one han d , and overt hom osexual behavior, on the other. T h a t distinction is crucial at this juncture since evaluation o f the biblical d a ta requires a ju d g em en t as to w hether the Scripture intends to com m ent or decree on either co n d itio n o r o n b o th o f them . Since the biblical trad itio n does n o t itself clearly distinguish between hom osexuality as o rien ta tio n and hom osexuality as overt behavior, it seems necessary to judge from the context w hich o f the tw o is at issue in any given biblical text or injunction. T his issue becom es the m ore critical in this study when one considers th a t som e persons w ith hom osexual orientation claim to discipline them selves for m oral and religious reasons to exclusively heterosexual behavior o r to refrain from sexual b eh av io r altogether. M o re o -ver, there seems som e considerable indication th a t confirm ed heterosexual persons behave hom osexually under certain circum stances as in isolated, single-gender com m unities such as prisons.
In the light o f the psychological and chem ical sources o f hom osexuality an d heterosexuality, as well as the recent brain tissue studies w hich urge the n o tio n th a t sexual o rien ta tio n is in b o rn and pre-set a t conception, and in the light o f varieties o f behavior and social conform ity or non-conform ity o f hom osexuals and heterosexuals, it is a crucial m a tte r to determ ine which o f these orien tatio n s a n d /o r behaviors is addressed by those scriptures
bearing on this issue. Is the Bible for o r against hom osexuality as orientation a n d /o r as behavior? D oes it express itself regarding hom osexual behavior only o r also regarding hom osexual o rien tatio n o r identity: either o r neither?
A S criptural Survey
T h e Bible speaks very infrequently o f hom osexual o rientation or behavior. A t m ost, six references are identifiable and in three o f those it is by no m eans certain th a t either hom osexual o rien tatio n o r behav io r is really the m a tte r o f focus. T hree Old T estam ent texts and three from the New T estam en t deserve o u r atten tio n . T hey are G enesis 19: 1-29, Leviticus 18: 22-24, 20: 13, R om an s 1: 26-27, I C o rin th ian s 6: 9-10, an d I T im othy 1: 10. O f these it is unlikely th a t hom osexual o rien ta tio n o r b ah av io r is the m a tte r a t issue in the G enesis and Leviticus passages. M oreover, it is d o u b tfu l th a t hom osexual orientation is addressed in any o f the scriptural p ro scriptions, th o u g h hom osexual behavior seems certain to be.
O ld Testam ent
In G enesis 19: 1-29 the story o f Sodom and G o m o rra h is recounted. T h e story unfolds in a series o f six related n arrativ e elem ents. F irst, Lot encounters the tw o angelic figures at the city gate and offers them the culturally required hospitality to strangers which was so crucial and inviolable in ancient N e ar E astern cultures. H e provides them food and housing. Second, the citizens o f S odom ap p e ar and dem and o f L ot an in troduction to the strangers th a t they m ay know them. T h ird , L o t refuses th eir dem ands o n the ground th a t the strangers had “ com e un d er the shelter o f his ro o f,” a form ulaic expression describing the prim ary co n d itio n requiring the
hos-p itality to strangers. F o u rth , L ot offers the citizens his tw o virginal daughters
to “ do with them w hat they pleased.” F ifth , the citizens feel insulted by L ot fo r invoking their own cultic hospitality code against them , as though he were th eir jud g e, and for offering them his d au g h ters as substitutes, and they a ttac k him . Sixth, the angels defend L ot by striking the citizens blind.
It is notew o rth y th a t there is no direct reference here to either h o m o -sexual o rien ta tio n o r behavior. T here is som e suggestion o f -sexual m is-behavior. T h ere m ay be som e im plication o f p o ten tial bisexual interest. I t is m uch m o re likely, o f course, th a t L ot is so aw are o f the hom osexual interests o f the p a rtic u la r crow d which m obbed his d o o r th a t he saw them to be o f n o th rea t to his daughters and, therefore, intends an ironic insult
against them by offering them his daughters, know ing th a t his daughters would be o f no interest to them and therefore w ould be perfectly safe and in no sense a t risk. One m ust im agine th a t his doing so incites a general b u rst o f sarcastic laughter am ong the com pany o f family and friends inside the house, including m errim ent on the p a rt o f his daughters w ho understan d the ironic n atu re o f the insult perfectly well and may have shared those very sentim ents frequently aro u n d the fam ily table while discussing the state o f cultural values am o n g the citizens o f their ra th e r ra m b u n c tio u s ad opted city.
N o o th er exp lan atio n seems adequate to account for L o t’s otherw ise thoughtless and cavalier offer o f his daughters. M oreover, this interpretation also accounts adequately for the fact th a t L o t’s offer only incites greater rage and urgency in the crowd outside. They tu rn violent and attem p t to break dow n the d o o r to get at the strangers housed u n d er L o t’s roof. A t the sam e tim e, they d em o n strate n o interest w hatsoever in L o t’s daughters. M oreover, the sexual im plications in the narrativ e d o no t com e under any kind o f ju d g em en t in the story itself, either positive o r negative, regarding either hom osexual or heterosexual behavior. O bviously, sexual behavior o f w hatever kind is n o t the p oint o f the story n o r does it becom e any kind o f issue here.
Q uite plainly, the p roscription voiced by the passage th ro u g h the ju d -gem ent L ot pronounccs up o n the citizens is viewed by L ot him self as a p ro scrip tio n against a breach o f cultic hospitality laws. T h o u g h the verb,
know, clearly im plies sexual behavior, and in this case, apparen tly , hom
o-sexual inten t on the p a rt o f the m ob, L ot seems n o t to care at all, neither does the story express any concern or judgem ent a b o u t w hether o r w hat kind o f sexual behavior is intended. T h a t seems n o t to be the issue at stake. W hat is at stake is the inviolable prescription for hospitality to strangers.
Leviticus 18: 22 declares, “ Y ou shall no t lie with a m ale as with a w o-m an: it is an ab o o-m in atio n .” T he text clearly forbids soo-m e sort o f hoo-m osexual behavior. H ow ever, the scope o f th a t proscription and the m o tiv atio n behind it is n o t quite so clear in the text. T he entire ch a p te r deals w ith a long list o f com m ands by G o d against behavior th a t leads to ritual uncleanness under the cultic code o f Israel. T h e ch a p te r ends w ith the ra tio n ale th a t for Israel to breach these cultic laws is to lose her distinctivcness from the C anaanites, her distinctiveness as the people o f Y ahw eh.
Leviticus 18 is a veritable catalogue o f E gyptian and C an aa n ite ritual practices involving b ehavior which, in term s o f G o d ’s cultic prescriptions for Isra el’s distinctive life and w orship, were perversions. T h e ch ap ter opens w ith a repetitious d eclaration to Israel th a t she shall no t w alk in the statu tes o f the C an aan ites bu t in those o f the L o rd . T h ere follows the list
o f practiccs th a t the E gyptians and C anaanites em ployed in th eir daily lives and in th eir fertility cult liturgies and o th er related cultic activity: sexually conso rtin g w ith relatives, sexually consorting with w om en d u rin g their m enstrual unclcanncss,” adultery, child sacrifice, hom osexual behavior, and beastiality.
T here arc fo u r reasons repeatedly given fo r the pro scrip tio n o f these practiccs. Such behavior com prom ises Isra el’s cultic and cultural distinc- tivcncss. It is a perversion. It is an ab om ination. T h e land will “ vom it you o u t when you defile it, as it vom ited o u t the n atio n th a t was before y o u .” T hese fo u r arc w eighted heavily in the passage by being placed against their b ac k d ro p and raison d ’etre, nam ely, “ I am the L ord yo u r G o d !” T h e entire th ru st o f Leviticus 18 is the em phasis upon Isra el’s cultic and cultural distinctiveness.
I he H ebrew w ord fo r ab o m in atio n ( to'eba) is crucially significant here. It is a w ord derived from the sphere o f the cultic rituals o f the cultures o f the Semitic N ear East. Its stem m eans “ to a b h o r” som ething for religious reasons. Idolatry is the chief reference to such abom ination in the H ebrew Bible. Such scriptures as D e u te ro n o m y 7: 25, 27: 15, II K ings 23: 13, Jerem iah 16: 18, and Ezekiel 14: 6 speak o f idols as an a b o m in a tio n . L eviticus 18, D e u te ro n o m y 1 2 :3 1 , 1 3 :1 4 , 1 7 :4 , 1 8 :9 , II K ings 1 6 :3 , 2 1 :2 , II C hronicles 3 3 :2 , Ezekiel 5 :9 , 11, and M alachi 2: 11 refer to id o latro u s behavior as an ab o m in atio n . “ Included as an ab o m in atio n was n o t only the explicit practice o f id o latry , how ever, but an ything th a t even rem otely pertained to it, like the eating o f unclean anim als and food (Lev. 11, D eut. 1 4 :3 -2 1 )” (K osnik 1977, p. 189). T he assessm ent o f Leviticus 18 for im plications regarding hom osexual o rien-ta tio n o r behavior, therefore, hinges upon the precise intent o f toceba, ab o m in atio n , in verse 22.
In Leviticus 20 we have, quite curiously, a virtual repetition o f Leviticus 18. Only tw o ad d itio n s are m ade. F irst, all the proscribed cultic behavior is described m etaphorically as w horedom with M olech. Second, the death penalty is added to all o f the forbidden conduct including hom osexual behavior. Leviticus 20, therefore, contributes nothing to the discussion except to reinforce the link betw een sexual behavior and cultic m isbehavior by the use o f sexual m e ta p h o r to describe “ h ea th e n ” w orship practices.
New Testam ent
As we tu rn to the N ew T estam ent we m u st address w hat has been considered the classic passage on hom osexual behavior, R om an s 1: 26-27. Paul inveighs against u n n atu ra l intercourse by w om en and hom osexual
behav io r by m en. T h e entire first ch a p te r o f R o m an s has a special structure which constitu tes an illum ining context for this reference to hom osexual activity. A fter the predictable opening greeting, P aul expresses heartfelt concern for the spiritual welfare o f C hristians in R om e, acknow ledging his ap o stlcsh ip to all kinds o f hum an s. T h ere follow s his section on G o d ’s righteousness im puted to persons o f faith and faithfulness. T he fo u rth section details G o d ’s w rath against wickedness. In this context hom osexual behavior com es under judgem ent ra th e r incidentally as one of the perversions o f h u m an relationships which results from the real p ro b lem o f ungodliness. T h a t real problem is such perversion o f o u r relatio n -ship w ith G o d as arises ou t o f denial o f G o d ’s self-revelation in nature, arrogance, and idolatry. Paul argues th a t the perversion o f hom osexual behavior is a tte n d a n t upon th a t idolatry and is destructive to hum ans. H ere, as in Leviticus, the cultic practices o f heath en nations which sup-p la n t G o d with “ w orshisup-p o f the creature ra th e r th a n the c re a to r” are a tte n d e d by ritu al hom osexual behavior. T h a t ritu al id o la try an d its a tte n d a n t behavior, ritual hom osexual activity, is a com prom ise o f the distinctive ch a rac te r o f the people called to w orship “ th e creato r w ho is blessed forev er.”
T h e question then is w hether hom osexual behav io r in its own right, a p a rt from cultic expressions which com prom ise o u r distinctiveness as the people o f Y ahw eh and are thus the varied form s o f ido latry , is to be judged negatively. It seems clear th a t w hatever is ab h o rred in R om an s 1: 26-27 is hom osexual behavior ra th e r th an hom osexual orientation. N either the G reco- R o m an w orld n o r the biblical docum ents distinguish between the tw o, nor was there a consciousness in th a t w orld o f the psychological or genetic co n d itio n o f heterosexuality or hom osexuality as a psychological o r systemic o rien tatio n . T his accounts for the fact th a t the Bible addresses itself consis-tently to the behavior only, particularly in those expressions o f it which identified persons w ith the non-Judaic and n o n -C h ristian cultic o r cultural values and functions.
T h e second P auline reference with which we m u st co nccrn ourselves is I C o rin th ia n s 6: 9-10. H ere Paul publishes a catalogue o f sinners in which he lists hom osexuals along with those who are greedy, im m oral, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, d ru n k a rd s, revilers, and robbers. H e declares th a t these people will n o t inherit the kingdom o f G od. P au l’s address to the C orinthian C hu rch on these m a tte rs m akes two points regarding hom osexual behavior. F irst, he points to some o f the church m em bers as previous practicioners of the p agan activity and, second, he declares them saved, forgiven, and sanctified by G o d ’s grace. T he Pauline assessm ent places hom osexual beha-vior on a p a r w ith o th er com m on sins. His p o in t concerns the difference betw een the cu sto m ary behavior o f the old p ag an way and th a t o f the new
C hristian statu s o f the believers. In this passage th ere seems to be som e indication th a t hom osexual behavior is sinful in its ow n right, ra th e r than simply co n stitu tin g a com prom ise o f cultic prescriptions by reverting to proscribed pag an cultic or cultural behavior.
F inally, I T im o th y 1: 10 offers us a Pauline reference to Sodom ites. T h o u g h it is im possible, as noted above, to identify the sin o f Sodom as hom osexual b ehavior since it is so clearly a m a tte r o f the breach o f the code o f h o spitality to strangers, it is generally assum ed th a t when Paul refers to Sodom ites he has followed Philo Ju d ae u s and the A p o cry p h a in m eaning hom osexual behavior. The B ook o f Jubilees, The T estam ent o f the
Twelve Patriarchs, The Testam ent o f Naphtali, The Testam ent o f Benjamin, The Second B ook o f Enoch, and Jo sep h u s’ A ntiquities o f the Jews are all
n on-canonical books which suggest th a t the sin o f Sodom was hom osexual behavior.
Philo Ju d ae u s (30 B .C .E .-50 C .E .) was the first w riter to connect Sodom explicitly with hom osexual practices (K osnik 1977, p. 192). Jude 6—7 and II P eter 2: 4, 6 -10 suggest th a t the sin o f S odom was fornication and “ going afte r strange flesh.” In Ju d e 7, as in The B ook o f Jubilees, the m a tte r is related to the sin o f the angels and m en described in Genesis 6: 1-4, in which the sons o f G od m ak e love with the d au g h ters o f men. Because this reference in Ju d e depends up o n m ythic ap o cry p h al evidence from w hich it is borrow ed, and m akes reference to a com pletely obscure text in G enesis, it is neither relevant to o u r study n o r a trustw orthy definition o f the sin o f Sodom .
T h e question rem aining regarding the New T estam e n t literature on hom osexual o rien ta tio n and behavior, therefore, is th a t concerning the ex ten t to w hich th e b eh av io r is p roscribed o n th e basis o f its being inherently im m oral o r unchristian. T o w hat extent is it fo rbidden bccause o f its p ag a n cultic connection, or because o f an u n fo rtu n a te link m ade betw een hom osexual behavior and the sin and fate o f Sodom ? T o w hat extent, in the last case, is the link dependent up o n an erro n eo u s dependency o f P aul, sim ilar to th a t o f P eter and Ju d e, up o n ap o c ry p h al sources from the S cptuagint, o r up o n Josephus and Philo Judaeus? In the following section the questions raised in this scriptural survey will be addressed. Such passages as D eu tero n o m y 22: 5 o n transvestism , an d 23: 17 as well as I K ings 14: 24 and 15: 12 on m ale cult p ro stitu tio n in Israel m ight have been treated in detail, as well. They illustrate fu rth e r the p roscriptions o f cultic sexual behav io r addressed in Leviticus and echoed in R o m an s and C orin th ian s. H ow ever they add n o th in g new o r significant in inform ation, perspective, or em phasis to w hat has been stated reg ard in g hom osexuality in biblical perspective.
The C ultural-H istorical Perspective
A d eterm in a tio n o f the precise m eaning o f the six scriptures studied depends up o n the co n n o ta tio n as well as the d e n o ta tio n o f the tw o term s referred to above: y ď (to know ) and toceba (ab o m in atio n ). In addition, accu rate in terp re tatio n o f those scriptures requires a d eterm in atio n o f the extent to which som e o r all o f them depend upon m ythic apocryphal sources and o th er influences from the cultural-historical m atrix shaping them .
• O ld T estam ent
G enesis 4: 1 declares th a t after the expulsion from the garden “A dam knew his wife, Eve, and she conceived and b ore C ain ...” T his use of
y ď is a euphem ism and circum locution for the act o f intercourse. T he
term inology was used for m arital and n o n -m arital sexual relations, as is evident in G enesis 38. Such usage is no t confined to H ebrew but ap p ears in A k k a d ia n w ith reference to the coitus o f b o th hu m an s and anim als (Speiser 1964, p. 31).
W hen in G enesis 19, therefore, one encounters the term y ď , there seems no justification for any alternative in terp re tatio n th a n th a t o f intended sexual intercourse, o r sexual relations o f som e sort. T h e in terp re tatio n is confirm ed by L o t’s ironic suggestion regarding his daughters. Genesis 19: 5-8 is a reference to hom osexual prom iscuity in Sodom . T h a t such hom osexuality is not, however, the abom ination for which Sodom was destroyed is indicated by tw o facts. F irst, neither the angels n o r L ot m ak e a negative judgem ent regarding the sexual inten t or actions o f the m ob, th a t is, the narrativ e does n o t address th eir hom osexuality as a m oral issue. Second, the m o ral claims m ad e in the pericope have exclusively to d o w ith the p rescriptions o f the hospitality code, grounded in L o t’s argum ent th a t the strangers, the angels, had com e under his ro o f and thus he was responsible fo r their health and welfare. T h e m o b ’s wish is to exploit the strangers against their will. This the n arrativ e harshly judges. Such behavior breeches the prescriptions for p ro p e r hospitality c u rren t in the culture and essential to its stability. F rom L o t’s perspective, heterosexual and hom osexual prom iscuity were accepted cultural features in Sodom , bu t inhospitality to strangers, m ale or female, by exploiting them w ith o u t their consent, was severely censurable.
T here is no surprise in the fact, therefore, th a t no tra d itio n p rio r to the first century C .E . identifies the sin o r ab o m in atio n o f S odom as hom osexual behavior. Isaiah (1: 10, 3: 9) em phasizes th a t it was a lack o f justice. Jerem iah (23: 4) refers to it as adultery, lying, and an u n rep cn ten t attitude.
Ezekiel speaks o f it as pride, surfeit o f food, prosp ero u s ease, and a failure in the care o f the needy (Speiser 1964, p. 142; K o sn ik 1977, p. 191-192). D . S. Bailey provides a detailed evaluation o f the hom osexual in terp retatio n o f S o d o m ’s sin in the non-canonical scriptures (Bailey 1955, p. 11-25). T he ap o cry p h al sources in W isdom 10: 8 and Sirach 16: 8 describe Sodom as guilty o f folly, insolcnce, and inhospitality. W hen Jesus refers to S o d o m ’s sin no conn ectio n with sexuality is suggested, let alone any connection of hom osexuality. “T here is not the least reason to believe, as a m a tte r either o f historical fact o r o f revealed tru th , th a t the city o f Sodom and its neighbors were destroyed because o f th eir hom osexual practices. T his theory o f their fate seems undoubtedly to have originated in a P alestinian Jewish rc in te rp reta tio n o f G enesis 19, and its exponents, and by co n tem p t for the basest features o f G reek sexual im m orality” (Bailey 1955, p. 27; See also M cN eill 1976, p. 42-50). O f course, there is, nonetheless, the im plication o f intended sexual abuse in the Sodom story. H ow ever, sexual assault and violence, as physical an d psychospiritual violation is alw ays w rong, w hether it is heterosexual o r hom osexual. T herefore, even if hom osexual assault were condem ned in the Sodom story it w ould n o t, therefore, follow th a t hom osexual behavior in o th er circum stances is w rong.
T h ere is a passage in Judges 19 which recounts an incident th a t is in som e ways rem iniscent o f the narrativ e elem ents o f G enesis 19. It concerns the Lcvitc w hose concubine was sexually violated by the citizens o f G ibcah so th a t she died. T h e story has in com m on with the S odom account the following: a stranger housed by a citizen o f G ibeah, the desire o f the tow nsm en to (y ď ) know the stranger sexually, and the offer o f the female concubine instead, in breach o f the hospitality codes. T h e essential behavior intended in G enesis 19 and Judges 19 is sexual assault. T he m oral infraction is breech o f the hospitality code. T he condem ned behavior in Genesis 19 is breech o f the code and in Judges 19 breech o f the code and m urder. In Judges 19 ff. the penalty for the breech o f the h o spitality code by the men o f G ibeah is th eir being pu t to death.
B oth the stories o f Sodom and G ibeah deal w ith sexual violations. But the fact th a t the sex victim is interchangeable w ithout lessening the repulsion o f the biblical a u th o rs show s clearly th a t it is n o t hom osexuality o r hetero-sexuality th a t is the prim ary consideration here, bu t the violence and violation o f the “ stran g er w ho has com e under o u r ro o f.” I f sexuality is involved in the co n d e m n a tio n it is su b o rd in ate to the issues o f hospitality and justice. F o r Sodom as for G ibeah, the em phsis falls n o t on the proposed sexual act per se, bu t on the terrible violation o f the custom ary law of hospitality (K osnik 1977, p. 191; Bailey 1955, p. 23).
N eith er G enesis n o r Judges 19 tolerate violence, abuse, o r m u rd e r but n either d o they condem n hom osexual o rien tatio n o r hom osexual behavior.
T hey d o n o t deal w ith the form er at all and deal w ith the latter only incidently. H ow ever, the link th a t Philo m akes betw een S odom and h o m o -sexual behavior, reinforced by I I Enoch 10: 4, The T estam ent o f the Twelve
Patriarchs, The Testam ent o f N aphtali 3: 4 -5 , The Testam ent o f Benjamin
9: 1, an d Jo se p h u s’ Antiquities o f the Jews 1: 11, 3, ap p aren tly resulted in the fact th a t “ by the end o f the first century A .D .[sic], the sin o f Sodom had becom e widely identified am ongst the Jews w ith hom osexual practices” (Bailey 1955, p. 23). T his apocryphal and cultural-historical influence shaped the perspective on hom osexual behavior taken by P aul, Peter, and Jude.
So by P auline and Pctrinc tim es Sodom had becom e a sym bol o f the depravity C hristians found to be an a b o m in atio n in H ellenistic culture. K o sn ik (1977) and o thers p oint o u t th a t it is precisely th a t symbolic role for Sodom , reinterpreted as hom osexual m isbehavior particularly, th a t influenced New T estam e n t w riters, in their rare references to hom osexual behavior, as one am o n g a num ber o f sins. T hey p roscribe it as inherently w rong since it represented the typical depravitly o f the H ellenistic culture from w hich C hristians were called ou t to be distinctive as ekklesia, those called o u t and set a p a rt for G od. In th a t regard the ritual and cultic distinctiveness o f G o d ’s people addressed in Leviticus 18 and 20 is o f great interest. B oth Leviticus 18: 22 and 20: 13 inveigh against sexual intercourse betw een m ales. In both instances such hom osexual behavior is called to'eba (abom ination). In b o th passages hom osexual behavior is eq u a te d in seriousness w ith ad u ltery , incest, an d bcastiality ; yet there is one distinction in the co n dem nation o f hom osexual activity. It is con-dem ned w ith the fo rm u la th a t always refers to p a rtic ip a tio n in heathen w orship ritu al, “ It is an abom in atio n !” All the others are condem ned as depravity, perversions, defilem ent, and the like. T h e em phasis is, th e -refore, n o t ju st u p o n those behaviors which d o n o t con fo rm to the m ajority o f sexual activities. In the case o f hom osexual b eh av io r the em phasis is consistently up o n its being forbidden because it is an activity o f heathen w orship practices and th u s erases the distinctiveness o f the w orshipping ch aracter o f the people o f Y ahw eh.
The difficulty th at confronts us with these texts is the question in which distinguishable respects they are norm ative for us. It is the difficulty we enounter with much of the Old Testam ent legislation. F or there are three aspects to M osaic regulations: the ceremonial or cultic, the civic, and the ethical. Some maintain th a t the prohibition o f homosexualism (behavior) was instituted because o f the cultic practices o f Israel’s pagan neighbors and was intended to forbid Israel’s participation in such heathen w orship practices. T hat male prostitution was practiced among the neighbors o f Israel is seen in D euteronom y 33: 17. If this was indeed the intent o f the legislation then it is addressed against a specific (cultic) type o f homosexualism (behavior), and it may be questioned w hether homosexualism in non-cultic (e.g., m oral) contexts is condemned by these passages. (Acts o f Synod, 1973, p. 617-618)
I he use o f the term toceba thro u g h o u t the Leviticus passages is the clue to the essentially cultic nature o f their proscriptions o f hom osexual behavior. Keil and D elitzsch (1951) relate the passages to the E gyptian g o at cult. C anaanite literature has a Baal priest enacting B aal’s ritual o f intercourse w ith a heifer. Prim itive tem ple p ro stitu tio n o f b o th sexes was co m m on in the ancient N ear E ast. Leviticus 18 and 20 arc against every form o f loss o f cultic identity in Israel resulting from em ulating pagan cult behavior. K ozn ik , q u o tin g from N o th (1965, p. 16; 1967, p. 49), Snaith (1967, p. 126), Schoeps (1962, p. 371), and C ole (1959, p. 350-351) respectively, m akes the telling p o in t th a t
The fundamental theme o f the Levitical Holiness Code is, “D o not defile yourselves,” do not make yourselves unclean. Its concern is not ethical, but cultic. Even adultery is forbidden because o f ritual im purity (Lev. 18: 20). “ Leviticus deals alm ost exclusively with cultic and ritual m atters.” F or Israel o f the Old Testament, the worship o f Jahweh was unconditionally exclusive. A nything pertaining to the idolatrous cult o f Israel’s neighbors was an “ abom ina-tion” th at “defiled” an Israelite and rendered him unclean for the cult o f Jahweh. The Old Testament law codes, however, “ took their origin in a milieu where no sharp distinction was drawn between the cultic and the non-cultic sphere of activity, but where every side o f life had its links with cultic celebration.” Homosexual activity between men is proscribed in Leviticus for the same reason th a t it is condemned in D euteronom y and the Book o f Kings. It is an “abom ination” because of its connection with the fertility rites o f the Canaanites. The condemnation o f homosexual activity in Leviticus is not an ethical judgement. “ Homosexuality [sic] here is condemned on account of its association with idolatry.” (Kosnik 1977, p. 189-190)
T he Old T estam en t, then, n o t only fails to forbid hom osexual orientation o r identity, by virtue o f never defining o r considering the o rien ta tio n or tendency, but proscribes hom osexual b ehavior only in term s o f its negative cultu ral, cultic, and ritu al role in Israel and her neighbors. M oreover, the pro scrip tio n falls w ithin a context which (a) equates it with intercourse with a w om an d u rin g m en stru atio n “ a regulation n o t generally considered to be m orally binding to d a y ,” (b) identifies it with com prom ise o f cultic distinc-tiveness over against the C anaanites, an issue no longer relevant in the tw entieth century, and (c) forbids it as a form o f violation o f cultural hospitality prescriptions, a problem hardly relevant to the co ntem porary question. In addition, the Old T estam ent stands against any form o f behavior which violates a n o th e r hum an, a behavior soundly condem ned to d ay in W estern culture regardless o f w hether it is sexual an d regardless o f the gender o r o rien ta tio n o f any o f the persons involved.
• New T estam ent
T h e New T estam e n t passages which address o u r subject are clearly depen d en t u p o n the Old T estam ent trad itio n , bu t add a dim ension to the m a tte r, largely draw n from extra-canonical sources. It is clear th a t a basic
line o f arg u m en t in R om ans 1 :2 6 -2 7 , taken in the light o f the entire ch ap ter, is essentially the sam e as the argum ent in Leviticus. V arious sins and d isto rtio n s o f ap p ro p ria te hum an behavior arc indicated, including hom osexual behavior, and arc judged negatively precisely because they represent a way o f life incongrucnt with being the people o f G od. T he general th ru st o f the ch a p te r uses such term s as wickcdncss, ungodliness, suppression o f the tru th , futile thinking, im pure hearts, debased m inds, degraded bodies, and idolatry. H om o-sexual behavior is referred to as a d egrading passion which exchanges the n atu ra l for the u n n atu ral.
It seems clear th a t Paul m eans to describe here a general category of ungodliness, the term th a t introduces this section o f his essay (1: 18-25). T he essay describes this ungodliness as h u m an m isconceptions o f G o d ’s tru th , the tru th revealed plainly in creation for all to see. T h e result is w orship o f the creatu re ra th e r th an the creator. T h e consequence o f this m istake regarding tru th , which Paul claim s in the next pericope (1: 26-32), is th a t hu m an s have succum bed to tw o problem s: d egrading passions and debased m inds. D egrading passions are sexual disfunctions in which hum ans “ go against th eir ow n n a tu re s,” and debased m inds include covetousness, m alice, envy, m u rd er, strife, deceit, craftiness, gossip, slander, insolence, haughtiness, boastfulness, disrespcct o f p aren ts and G o d , foolishness, faith -lessness, heartlessncss, and ruthlessness.
T here is clearly a distinction which Paul intends betw een the sexual disfunctions, on the one han d , which produce “ degrading passions having the consequence th a t those persons receive in th eir ow n selves the penalty of their e rro r,” and the debased m inds, which prod u ce the list o f seventeen specific sins, on the other. In the form er case the language is very m uch like th a t which would describe psychopathology: u n n atu ra l behavior which has the w eight, character, and valence o f an error and produces a penalty in the p e rp e tra to r’s inner person. In the latter case the list o f sins is specifically referred to as wickedness and “those th a t practice such things deserve to die.” T his c o n tra st seems m o re th an ju st incidental o r accidental. P aul does not say w hat exactly the penalty is for the e rro r o f sexual abn o rm ality , n o r does he indicate how it falls upon those with sexual disfunction, bu t it is clear that it im pacts equally both “ wom en w ho resort to u nnatural intercourse and m en w ho bu rn w ith passion fo r one an o th er and com m it sham eless ac ts.”
O ne m ight conjecture th a t the behaviors w hich are com m on to such w om en and such m en m ight be oral sex and anal sex. T hese Paul m ight have considered u n n atu ra l, though they were no t so considered in his day n o r are they in o u r day. Indeed, they seem to have been considered tw o o f the n a tu ra l form s o f sexual play th ro u g h o u t the H ellenistic C ulture, and seem to be considered norm al range behaviors in ours.
It is possible, o f course, th a t P aul had som e kind o f anal fixation and therefore refers only to anal sex in b o th cases an d judges it as a degrading passion. M y im agination is p robably som ew hat lim ited in these m atters, but I c a n n o t th in k o f o th e r o ptions which Paul m ight be denegrating except bcastiality, and if th a t is w hat he m ean t one w ould th in k he w ould have spelled it o u t, as docs the Levitical C ode which can be seen shining thro u g h from behind P au l’s th o u g h t and language. W h at we d o know is th a t Paul speaks again st these “ u n n a tu ra l” behaviors because he sees them as con-sequences o f failing to be distinctive w orshippers o f Y ahw eh. P agan people d o such things. T h e People o f Y ahw eh do not.
W hen Paul speaks o f hom osexual behavior he says th a t because the H ellenistic people w orship the creatu re instead o f the C rea to r, G o d gave them u p to degrading passions, u n n atu ra l relations, an d sham eless acts, and som e internal perso n al penalty for their erro r. T h e problem addressed is the experience o f d iso rd er in h u m an behavior and the related diso rd er within the person. T h e undefined penalty m ay be confusion o f sexual identity, lack o f full-fledged psychological health, certainly som e spiritual disfunction since it com prom ises o n e’s distinctivcness as an ad h e ren t o f the cult o f Y ahw eh, o r sexual ad d ictio n o f som e sort. T here is n o th in g here o f the language o f w ickedness, divine punishm ent, o r sinful behavior th a t is b latan t in the next section regarding debased m inds an d their seventeen sins, and for which the punishm ent is the d ea th penalty o f Leviticus 20: 2-2 1 , 27.
So P aul docs no t address the issue o f hom osexual orientation in R om ans 1 and he does n o t list hom osexual behavior with the fatal sins o f the godless life. R a th e r, he describes abnorm al sexual behaviors in b o th m en and w om en, heterosexual and hom osexual, as h u m an sickness an d d isto rtio n which results from subverting the tru th o f G o d evident in the creation. Since in the H ellenistic culture the notio n o f in terio r sexual o rien ta tio n was n o t kn o w n o r considered, m uch less the question o f w hether it was inborn, developm ental, o r environm entally induced, hom osexual behav io r was co n -sidered to be a practice o f heterosexual persons engaged in fo r the sake o f cult ritual o r fo r diversion. W om en were seen as filling the role o f hom e m an ag e r and bearer o f children, n o t as sexual playm ates. T h u s pubescent girlish boys were often taken as sexual playm ates by older m en. T his seems to have been a co m m on practice in add itio n to cultic hom osexual behavior associated w ith fertility rites and the like.
It c a n n o t be determ ined on the basis o f R o m an s 1 th a t Paul considered all hom osexual relationships to be inherently sinful. It m ust be concluded, how ever, th a t this passage argues th a t hom osexual behavior is at least a p athology, d isto rtio n , or dysfunction: an ab n o rm a lity w hich is against
nature. This seems to be associated with a specific unconvcntionality, namely, an u n n a tu ra l burn in g passion for non-vaginal intercourse, w hether h etero-sexual or hom oetero-sexual, w hether by wom en o r m en.
In I C o rin th ia n s 6: 9-10 the situation is qu ite different th an R om ans 1 and I T im o th y 1: 10 is sim ilar to it. In the C o rin th ia n passage hom osexual behavior is listed in the m iddle o f the catalogue o f .sins, for which the tw ice-repeated penalty is failure to inherit the K ingdom o f G o d , nam ely to lose o u t on the flourishing reign o f G o d ’s agape and grace in o n e’s life. T h e to tal list o f sins includes fornication, idolatry, adultery, m ale p ro s-titu tio n , sodom y, theft, greed, drunkenness, and reviling. T h e elem ent in com m on in all o f these sins, o f course, is prom iscuity. T h e Bible is generally and consistently against prom iscuity (porneia) usually rendered as fornication. H ow ever, prom iscuity is possible in m any ways, all having the sam e d e-structive effect o f eroding h u m an personality and p erso n h o o d . F o r exam ple, one can be p rom iscuous sexually, intellectually, spiritually, psychologically, and socially. All loosen the hinges o f o n e’s psychospiritual identity and erode o n e’s sense o f self. All shear o ff o n e’s au th en tic inner em otional or psychospiritual self from the gym nastics o f o n e’s behavior, w hether th a t is sexual behavior, intellectual behavior, social behavior, or spiritu al behavior.
P sychospiritually, it is the sam e function to engage a n o th e r person in sexual b eh av io r w ith o u t an authentic inner em otional connectedness, as to engage a n o th e r p erson in p ro fo u n d intellectual sharin g w ithout having an au th en tic inner sense o f tru st and investm ent in th a t person based upon som e deep shared goals o r ideals, o r to engage a n o th e r person in sharing your deepest spiritual experience w ithout having established an authentic personal relationship. W hen a person sits dow n beside you o n a bus and im m ediately proceeds to “ share Jesus” in intensive and extensive detail, th a t is p ersonality-eroding prom iscuity and is situ atio n -in a p p ro p riate . It reflects p sy chopathology in th a t person. T h e hinges are to o loose. T he sam e m ust be said fo r the person w ho im m ediately feels it a p p ro p ria te to expound K a n t’s p hilosophy u n d er th a t sam e circum stance, o r explain his o r her own intim ate personal odyssey in exhausting detail. T hese are prom iscuous beh av io rs an d th e Bible is everyw here ag a in st them because they are destructive o f h u m an personality o r m anifest considerable inner pathology and d isto rtio n , nam ely, a gross lack o f healthy b o undaries, im pulse control, cognitive reflection, and o rien tatio n to the situation.
In I C o rin th ia n s 6: 9-1 0 it is clear th a t P aul is against this kind of prom iscuity. T his is particularly evident in his references to fornication, idolatry, adultery, m ale p ro stitu tio n , sodom y, and theft. T hese arc persons w hom we identify psychologically as suffering from a failure to set and m ain tain a p p ro p ria te inner boundaries, either because they are suffering
from developm ental disorders o r from inherited B orderline Personality Syndrom e. M ale pro stitu tes obviously are prom iscuous in the sense th at they solicit prom iscuously. T hey have no identified com m itted allegiance o r covenanted relationship. Sodom ites seek o u t m ale o r fem ale p rostitutes for anal intercourse. T hey are prom iscuous in the sam e m a n n e r as their p ro -stitute co u n terp arts. T here is reason to believe th a t w hat P aul is decrying here is prom iscuity, which the Bible is everyw here against and w hich is so obviously destructive o f hum an personhood. T h a t would suggest th a t perhaps this perspective has som ething to do with w hat P aul m eans in his reference in R om an s 1 to an internal penalty which is paid w ithin o n e ’s person as a conscquencc o f ab n o rm al sexual practices o f any kind.
In all o f these Pauline passages a n um ber o f things m ay be discerned. F irst, P aul does n o t condem n hom osexual o rien ta tio n bu t neither does he appro v e it. As the rest o f Scripture, his passages offer n o trea tm e n t o f it since it is never identified in the Bible as a hu m an co ndition. Second, Paul addresses only hom osexual behavior, as do the surprisingly few o ther relevant scriptural passages. T h ird , in R om ans P aul treats at least som e kinds of hom osexual practice, if n o t all hom osexual behavior, as a serious hum an d iso rd er like th a t o f wom en w ho practice u n n a tu ra l intercourse, presum ably o f a heterosexual nature. Incidently, there is no indication here th a t Paul thinks o f the possibility o f lesbianism . F o u rth , in this R om an s passage Paul does n o t list hom osexual behavior as wickedness n o r assign it the death penalty o f Leviticus. In I C orin th ian s and I T im o th y P aul describes as sinful m ale p ro stitu tio n and sodom y, the only form s o f hom osexual behavior he know s in these passages, and b o th o f which are form s o f prom iscuity, to which he assigns the d eath penalty. F ifth, in all o f these passages Paul speaks o f hom osexuality in contexts which sound like prom iscuous and obsessive behav io r and in none does Paul clearly address the possibility o f a hom osexual relationship w ithin a tro th o f com m itted love and “m arriag e” (O lthuis 1975). T he idea does no t seem to arise in his m ind. Besides the ap p aren t im plications o f prom iscuity in som e o r all o f these Pauline passages, the C o rin th ia n and T im othy references list the hom osexual behavior in con ju n ctio n w ith adultery, underlining the illicit and prom iscuous character o f the ab e rra tio n . T herefore, it ca n n o t be determ ined th a t P aul intended to condem n hom osexual behavior within tro th . Sixth, there is a general stru c-tu ral co rrespondence o f ideas between Old T estam e n t co n d em n atio n o f hom osexual behavior as a com prom ise o f Isra el’s cultic distinctiveness as the people o f Y ahw eh and the New T estam ent co n d em n atio n o f hom osexual b ehavior as a com prom ise o f the distinctiveness o f the body o f C hrist. T hese tw o stood in co n tra st with the degenerate aspects o f the C anaanite and H ellenistic cultures, respectively.
It m ust be remembered th at the New Testam ent originatod in the era o f Caligula and N ero. St. Paul was a contem porary o f Petronius, whose Satyricon, along with the writings o f Juvenal and M artial, presents a lurid description o f pagan life in the first Century. Prostitution, male as well as female, was ram pant. Slaves, men and women, were sold for sex. Pederasty, child molestation, and seduction were commonplace. Dissolute heterosexuals engaged freely in homosexual liaisons for diversion. Violence was coupled with every sort of perversion and possibility o f dehumanization. Confronted by such degeneracy, a Hel-lenistic Jew like Paul could not but be repulsed. (Kosnik 1977, p. 194)
Psycho-Thcological Evaluation
H aving attem pted to read the relevant biblical passages in their scriptural and cultural-historical context, w hat can we say from a biblical perspective to the tw enty first century a b o u t hom osexual o rien ta tio n and behavior? Arc the p ro h ib itio n s o r co n stra in ts in the biblical passages universalizable to all form s o f hom osexual behavior, for all times and situations? W h at ab o u t gcncric psychological conditions, genetic factors, congenital differences in b rain tissue stru ctu re in the sex-determ ining ccnters in the brain, and which p roduce o r shape hom osexuality? W h at ab o u t any early childhood environ-m ental factors w hich environ-m ight fix sexual o rien tatio n prc-cognitively and sub- volitionally? D oes the Bible provide room for exceptions depending upon the situ atio n ? T h e creatio n ord er seems to have been m ale and fem ale in union, an arran g em en t in which native and prim al h u m an needs are fulfilled in com p an io n sh ip - in experience with an “ ap p ro p ria te helper.” W hat ab o u t com m itted co m p an io n sh ip for the hom osexual p erson w ho c a n n o t change?
O bviously, hom osexual orien tatio n c a n n o t be condem ned o r proscribed on biblical grounds. T h e Bible does n o t deal w ith it, as indicated above. T he m o st one can say in term s o f the specific references to hom osexual behavior in S cripture is th a t the Bible is against prom iscuous an d co rru p tin g hom ose-xual activities w hich have a destructive im pact upon o thers or upon o n e’s inner self. T h e psychological sciences have long since ta u g h t us how errosivc o f healthy an d in teg rated perso n h o o d is any prom iscuous practice in w h ate-ver sphere o f h u m an self-expression. R ecent research published in such estim able jo u rn als as Science, Science News, and The N ew England Journal o f
M edicine have d em o n strated the congenital n atu re o f a t least som e form s of
hom osexuality as evidenced by tissue studies o f the sex o rien tatio n -d eterm i-ning facet o f the brain. In this regard it is highly inform ative to take n o te o f the research reports on brain features and genetic factors which arc linked to sexual o rien ta tio n presented in Science N ew s in the last six years (A ug. 31, 1991, vol. 140, p. 134; Ja n . 4, 1992, vol. 141, p. 6; Jul. 17, 1993, vol. 144, p. 37; Ja n . 21, 1995, vol. 147, p. 42; and N ov. 4, 1995, vol. 148, p. 295).
T h ere is an increasingly burgeoning and converging bo d y o f em pirical evidence th a t hom osexual o rien ta tio n is as n a tu ra l for the hom osexual person, and as congenitally predeterm ined, as heterosexual o rien tatio n is for the rest o f us. As th a t picture becom es clearer, as I am sure it will in the next decade, surely the next century, it will becom e ap p a re n t th a t if P a u l’s argum ent in R om ans 1 hangs on the n o tio n th a t it is w rong to go against o n e’s ow n n atu re , th a t cuts both ways and is as solid a w a rra n t for healthy hom osexual behavior as for healthy heterosexual behavior. A p er-son o f the o pposite gender is an u n n atu ra l p a rtn e r for a hom osexual person. P au l’s co n d em n atio n o f cxhanging the n a tu ra l for the u nnatural raises the issue o f auth en tic personhood as certainly for the hom osexual p erson as for the heterosexual person and inveighs against willful p rom is-cuity and com prom ise o f a p erso n ’s au th en tic self, w hether hom osexual or heterosexual.
Obviously, St. Paul knew nothing of inversion either as an inherited trait or a condition fixed in childhood. [...] Inversion as a constitutional condition is a phenom enon which lies totally outside the biblical perspective and consideration. [...] Until recent findings of medical science and research came to light, inversion lay outside Christian tradition and theological considerations altogether. (Kosnik 1977, p. 195-196; See also Schoeps 1962, p. 373)
I f this suggests to som e th a t the biblical perspective looks a lot like situ atio n a l ethics, it should be noted th a t Jesus m ad e a very large p o in t of situ atio n al ethics being the heart o f the C hristian W ay. T h e S abb ath was m ad e for people and n o t people for the S ab b ath , hence the laws regarding it were to be in terpreted in ways th a t would ac com m odate the reality o f h u m an need. Jesus was a situational ethicist, b u t a special kind o f one. He was a situational ethicist with a very special bias. H is bias was th a t w hatever was legitim ated behavior had to be healing behavior w hich enhanced hum an grow th and wellbeing. Jesus constantly set aside principle, precedent, and trad itio n to act in term s o f w hat was healing fo r a specific person, in a specific situation, at a specific time. T h a t was his principle! His forgiveness o f the ad u ltero u s w om an in Jo h n 7 -8 , instead o f follow ing the law th a t required stoning her, is a d ram atic case in point. M oreover, the Bible presents n um erous exceptions to the m ost rigid rules. K illing is forbidden in S cripture b u t exceptions are m ade for w ar, self-defense, an d capital punish-m ent. M arriag e is a p erpunish-m an en t copunish-m punish-m itpunish-m ent in S cripture b u t divorce is provided for, as an exception. Lying and deceit are forbidden, b u t R ahab and the H ebrew m idw ives are approved for it. Som e form s o f hom osexual behavior, a t least, are condem ned. A re there exceptions? If so, w hat are they? A heterosexual is advised by Paul th a t it is b etter to m arry th an to lose self co n tro l an d be aflam e w ith passion. Surely the hom osexual person
who is in the com p arab le circum stance should be encouraged to find the requisite n u rtu re and fulfillm ent, as well, in a perm anent, com m itted, faithful tro th relationship o f love and m arriage with a hom osexual p artn e r, in keeping w ith his ow n nature, as Paul prescribes.
Conclusion
It seems quite evident th a t in Scripture hom osexual behavior is no t the n a tu ra l o rd e r o f creation. H ow ever, th a t is n o t the issue. T he issue is ra th e r the problem o f w hether the hom osexual person w ho finds him -self or her-self in th a t state m ust be deprived o f the full-orbed pcrsonhood th a t is afforded and enhanced by sexual com m union and the a tten d a n t em otional and spritual n u rtu re, affection, and appreciatio n . In their pas-to ral advice K osnik et alii assert th a t hom osexual persons have the same rights to love, intim acy, and relationships, in term s o f their native needs, as d o heterosexuals. U nder the m ore general rubrics o f C hristian love, grace, and gro w th , th a t w ould surely seem to be th e re q u irem en t o f G o d ’s w ord.
In so far as this m ay be agreed upon, it follows, o f course, th at hom osexual persons are also required to pursue the sam e relationship ideals as heterosexual persons are ideally com m ited to observe. T h e norm s for their sexual activity are the sam e as those for all h u m an ethical life, the C hristian bias fo r w hat heals and incites grow th in them selves and others, before the face o f G od and in his way o f righteousness and tru th . M inim ally this m eans faithful, exclusive, p erm anent love relationships, requiring the ju d g m en t by and w ith the hom osexual person as to w hat is self-liberating, other-enriching, honest, faithful, life-serving, an d joyous; as well as w hat prevents depersonalization, selfishness, dishonesty, prom iscuity, harm to society, and dem oralization. T hese differ n o t a t all from the constraints up o n heterosexual persons in relationship. These are the universal scriptural
dicta fo r w holesom e life in and with C hrist and his body, the C hurch,
un d er G o d ’s co n stitu tio n o f Shalom .
A conseq u en t im perative o f this biblical perspective is th a t the ecclesias-tical and secular com m unities provide for hom osexual persons the same rites o f passage, rituals o f affirm ation, and o p p o rtu n itie s fo r status th at heterosexual persons enjoy. T his would seem to include a t least the liturgies for m arriag e into w holesom e, exclusive, com m itted love relationships, regular o p p o rtu n ities for professional roles, and o rd in atio n in to religious m inistry.
Bibliography
Acts o f Synod, 1973 = Christian Reformed Church, Acts o f Synod, G rand Rapids, CRC Publications.
Bailey 1955 = D. S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Tradition, L ongm an’s, London. Benner 1985 = D. G. Benner (ed.), Baker Encyclopedia o f Psychology, G rand Rapids:
Baker Book House.
“ Brain Feature Linked to Sexual O rientation” , Science News, Aug. 31, 1991, vol. 140, p. 134. Cole 1959 = W. G. Cole, Love and Sex in the Bible, Association Press, New York. “Genetic Clue to M ale Homosexuality Emerges” , Science News, Jul. 17, 1993, vol. 144, p. 37. “Genetic Influence Tied to Male Sexual Orientation” , Science News, Jan. 4, 1992, vol. 141, p. 6. “ Homosexual Parents: All in the Fam ily”, Science News, Jan. 21, 1995, vol. 147, p. 42. Hunter 1990 = R. J. H unter (ed.), Dictionary o f Pastoral Care and Counseling, Abingdon
Press, Nashville.
Jennings 1990 = T. W. Jennings, “ Homosexuality” , [in:] R. J. H unter (ed.), Dictionary o f
Pastoral Care and Counseling, A bingdon Press, Nashville, p. 529.
Keil, Delitzsch 1951 = C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, vol. I—III, G rand R apids: Eerdmans.
Kosnik 1977 = A. K osnik et ah, Human Sexuality, Paulist Press, New York.
McNeill 1976 = J. McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual, Shecd and W ard, Kansas City. Noth 1965 = M . N oth, Leviticus. A Commentary, SCM Press, London.
Noth 1967 = M . N oth, The Laws o f the Pentateuch, Fortress Press, Philadelphia. Olthuis 1975 = J. O lthuis, I Pledge You M y Troth, H arper, New York.
I’attison 1985 = E. M . Pattison, “ Homosexuality: Classification, Etiology, and T reatm ent” , [in:] D. G . Benner (ed.), Baker Encyclopedia o f Psychology, G rand Rapids: Baker Book H ouse, p. 319.
Schocps 1962 = H . J. Schoeps, “ H om osexualität und Bibel” , Zeitschrift fü r evangelische
Ethik, 6, p. 371 IT.
Snaith 1967 = H. N . Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers, Nelson, London. Speiser 1964 = E. A. Speiser, Genesis, G arden City: Doubleday.
“ X Chrom osom e Again Linked to Sexuality” , Science News, Nov. 4, 1995, vol. 148, p. 295.
Homoseksualizm w perspektywie biblijnej
S t r e s z c z e n i e
Przekazy biblijne na tem at homoseksualizmu nie są jednoznaczne. Problem poruszony w pracy dotyczy z jednej strony zdefiniowania samego pojęcia homoseksualizm u, z drugiej - dyskusji jego aspektów uwidocznionych w społeczeństwie okresu biblijnego.
Biblia nie odróżnia orientacji homoseksualnej od zachowania homoseksualnego - podobnie jak i inne przekazy literackie świata grecko-rzymskiego.
A utor, dyskutując terminologię z punktu widzenia teologa i psychologa, podkreśla, że w rozważaniach należy wziąć pod uwagę również faktory chronologiczne. Aby w pełni zrozumieć oba aspekty homoseksualizmu w ujęciu biblijnym, odwołuje się on do rozważań kontekstualnych.
Biblia rzadko wzmiankuje homoseksualizm. A u to r szczegółowo om awia trzy przykłady z zakresu Starego Testam entu i trzy z zakresu Nowego Testam entu (Genesis 19: 1-29; Leviticus
18: 22-24, 20: 13; Listy św. Pawła: do Rzymian 1: 26-27, Koryncjan 6: 9-10, Tym oteusza 1: 10). Wzmianki te odnoszą się do zachowań homoseksualnych.
A utor zwraca uwagę, że homoseksualizm jest oceniany jak o zły, grzeszny i przestępczy w związku z kultem, lecz nie jest jasne, czy też poza nim. Biblia zajmuje się głównie kontekstem religijnym, a tylko pośrednio - etycznym.
Omawiając kontckstualne aspekty przekazów nowotestamentowych, au to r przywołuje fakt, że św. Paweł jest zdania, iż kult zwierząt powszechny w okresie hellenistycznym być może wpłynął na deprawujące zachowania seksualne i widzi w odmiennym zachowaniu seksualnym ludzką słabość i zwyrodnienie, więcej - patologię. W liście do K oryncjan homoseksualizm jest zaklasyfikowany do grzechów.
Biblia z zasady jest zorientowana przeciw nierządowi (porneia). F akt, że księgi Nowego Testam entu pow stały w czasach panow ania Kaliguli i N erona, współcześnie z Satyrykonem Petroniusza, dziełami Juw enala i Marcjalisa, kiedy rozluźnienie obyczajów było powszechne, a seks był rozrywką, bez wątpienia wpłynął na sformułowania biblijne (etyka sytuacjonalna).
A utor jest zdania, że reakcjom opisanym w Biblii nie możemy nadać uniwersalnego charakteru. Wskazuje na osiągnięcia nauk medycznych i psychologii, które pozwoliły nam poznać głębiej naturę jednostki. W efekcie, jeśli argum enty św. Pawła w liście d o Rzymian opierają się na odrzuceniu tego, co sprzeczne naturze, problem homoseksualizmu w stosunku do przekazów biblijnych wymaga nowych rozważań.
