my view on the Bible and homosexuality

[deird1]

(Copy-pasting this here just so it's not lost in internet comment oblivion.)

Homosexuality in the Bible is more complicated than "don't".

1) Peter's rooftop vision is important when considering this issue.
2) Cultural context of the discussion is also important.
3) An understanding of Ancient Greek vocabulary and translation trends is also important.
4) Romans 13:8–10 is worthy of consideration concerning this issue.

Peter's vision on the rooftop was used by God to say directly that unclean food could now be considered clean, and indirectly that unclean people (e.g. Gentiles) could now be considered clean. The general trend following this in the New Testament is that Old Testament laws do not need to be followed blindly, but can be applicable sometimes and not applicable on other occasions.

I consider that this perspective extends to the prohibition of homosexuality in Leviticus.

Culturally, the main way that homosexuality happened in New Testament times was adulterously and usually by raping male slaves. I have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with Paul looking askance at people (a) cheating on their wives, or (b) raping young boys.

The Greek words translated as "homosexual" in the NIV and similar versions are very unusual Greek words. They are difficult to translate. (There are many websites discussing this, by people with more linguistic training than me. I encourage you to google "arsenokoitai translation" to find them.)

As it is, the translation to "homosexual" only started in the last couple of hundred years. Earlier translations (in many, many languages) usually translate these as "child molester". (Again – I have absolutely no problem with the Bible being against child molestation.)

Romans 13:8–10 says that the correct way to interpret which commandments are needed and good is by assessing whether they are increasing love (specifically "agape" love). It says "love is the fulfillment of the law" – meaning that if you are being truly loving in every way, in the agape sense, then you are doing what God wishes. Commandments that must be followed (from a New Testament, Gentile perspective) are those that are inherently loving.

If a gay person were to go out and sleep with every guy he met at a nightclub, and be promiscuous, and be selfish, this would not be loving and therefore would be ungodly and sinful. If a gay person were to marry a man he loved, with the intention of cherishing and caring for that man in sickness/health/riches/poverty/etc for the rest of his life, seeking to put that man's wellbeing above his own, this would be loving, and therefore, I believe, would be godly.

Comments

[tielan]

And this is where I'm coming to myself. Still wrestling - with the Word, with my upbringing, with my conscience - and doing the reading. Rachel Held Evans' inspired is definitely helping, and I hope to get to Pete Enn's the sin of certainty before the end of the year.

[zeborah]

I found "Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today" a really useful way of understanding where the Bible was coming from and how to reorient our understanding of its intent in the context of our changed culture.

Every now and then I dive down the rabbit-hole of exploring what malakos and arsenokoitai could possibly mean, because languages fascinate me. But ultimately for me it comes down to a) whatever they mean, that/those thing(s) are only ever condemned (in Old Testament or New) as one throwaway thing among piles of others which are clearly of much greater concern to God/Jesus/the apostles respectively; and b) those much greater concerns generally seem to be connected to the utterly uncompromising nature of verses like God is love, and they who abide in love abide in God, and God in them.

[tielan]

A friend of an Australian Christian leader I really respect posted something to the effect of "Justice is spoken of 1000s of times in the bible, and homosexuality a handful of times; if Christians reacted to justice vs homosexuality in proportion to the biblical calling for it, rather than the other way around, how we would change the world!"

And, of course, the majority of comments in the post were "Yes, but sexuality and the prohibitions against it are very important, too!" Which...*eyeroll*.

My contribution was more or less that sexuality is the splinter in our neighbour's eye, while justice is the log in our own...

[lirazel]

Thanks for mentioning that book! I've added it to my reading list.

[thenewbuzwuzz]

That's interesting and makes a lot of sense to me. <3

[megpie71]

My take on the biblical authority for Christian positions on homosexuality is fairly simple: Christ certainly didn't seem all that exercised or upset about it. There is more support for homosexuality in the gospels than there is for divorce (in that divorce is directly condemned at least once, while homosexuality isn't even mentioned).

[lirazel]

Indeed. I suspect I detect Fred Clark's influence in your first bullet point. That one has really become such a large part of how I view my own faith.