What is the difference between the biblical arguments against homosexuality?

Answer 1

The views of the most ultra-conservative Christians, which tend to include the most evangelical groups, although not exclusively, are relatively simple and basic. All sexual immorality is wrong, and homosexuality is part of an umbrella of sexual immorality and must therefore be wrong. The extreme Conservatives assert that the Bible was written by authors who were directly inspired by God. Thus their writings are seen as inerrant and completely authorative as originally written. The Bible is seen as the actual Word of God and is the prime source of all religious, spiritual and moral truth. Whenever the Bible and science disagree, the former must be right despite any evidence backing up the science. Evidence that disagrees with Biblical truth must be wrong. As one example, they interpret the Garden of Eden story in the book of Genesis as a literal text describing and indicating the fall of humanity into sin through two actual humans formed as per the Genesis account. They view homosexual behaviour as one manifestation of that sin. Because of the inerrant nature of the Bible, as far as the ultra-Conservative is concerned, Christians should therefore follow the Bible, God's word, as the source of absolute truth, that is fixed and unchangeable. At the other extreme is the view of the most liberal and progressive Christians and a great majority of the secular world. Their views on homosexuality are more complex and diverse, and rely on the interpretation of scriptural passages in a more multifaceted way. To the liberal, the Bible is seen as a book written by those who lived in a pre-scientific age, which treated slavery, genocide, and the oppression of women as acceptable behaviours. Progressive theologians do not accept literal translations of some areas - and prefer to delve more into the context of verses generally looking for applicable biblical themes, like those advocating justice, love, monogamy, caring, commitment and so on. They believe that Christians should be open to the Holy Spirit teaching the need for change. This has happened in the past centuries concerning matters like slavery and the role of women. It is happening now over equal rights for those with a homosexual orientation. As far as the Bible is concerned, there are more than twenty references that explicitly refer to homosexual practices with the majority (at least thirteen) being in the Old Testament. In addition to these the Bible also records several same-sex relationships (eg Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan and Daniel and Ashpenaz) and, although the Bible does not make clear the actual nature of these relationships, the ambiguity has meant that liberals feel at liberty to regard them as possibly (probably?) homosexual in nature, whilst conservatives claim that they have to be purely platonic as homosexuality is a sin and therefore ipso facto such a relationship could not be condoned in scripture. Most of the Biblical references involving homosexuality are 'minor' references where the matter is treated either in passing or where a directive is ambiguous. However there are at least two references that seem very explicit in the condemnation of homosexuality - that in 1 Corinthians Chapter 6 and Romans Chapter 1. Verses 9 to 11 of the letter to the Corinthians seems on face value to make it perfectly clear that the wicked, the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers nor homosexuals would 'enter the Kingdom of God'. In Romans the condemnation seems even more explicit. We are told that the unrighteous have turned to 'shameful lusts' [Rom 1:24] and that homosexual practices were being indulged by women to - the only explicit reference to lesbianism in the New Testament. We are told that those men who indulged in same-sex relationships are indulging in 'perversions' [Rom 1:27] and received the 'due penalty'. Paul then includes these in a similar list of wrong-doers - even longer than that seen in 1 Corinthians. The passage in 1 Corinthians has stirred up much debate over its proper interpretation. The term used for 'male prostitutes - malakoi - literally means 'soft ones' and therefore could refer to any effeminate man. The second term used for homosexual though, arsenokoitai - literally means a generic term for men who engage in same-sex intercourse. However, in this text the actual meaning is still uncertain. "Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behaviour between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behaviour, but what the actual meaning is, is still uncertain. When the King James Version of the Bible was finished 1611, there was no single word that referred to homosexuals or homosexuality. The translators were forced to use this awkward phrase. The term "homosexual" was only created in the late 19th century. More recent versions of the Bible translate arsenokoitai here differently and more akin to as homosexual offenders (NIV) which places the emphasis away from the homosexuality itself but implies another, additional form of offending, although the sort of offence is not clear. Religious conservatives often interpret all of the Biblical passages that touch on same-sex activity as condemning homosexuality in all its forms. For example, they generally identify the sin of the men of Sodom to be homosexual behaviour. However, this approach often discounts the context in which the writer was penning the words, and especially disregards the social background in which the condemnation - if it is a condemnation - took place. To the conservative, homosexuality is seen as one of many manifestations of mankind's sinful nature, which are a direct result of Adam and Eve's activities in the Garden of Eden. The story of the depravity of Sodom [Genesis 19] is therefore interpreted by conservative Christians as describing the one result of the fall of humanity. However, in this reference, Paul is not writing a general instruction for all Christians for all time, but is responding to a specific set of questions posed by the Corinthians to which he responds in his letter. It is therefore quite clear that the main thrust of this passage is the response to paganism in the religiously cosmopolitan city of Corinth rather than anything else. Here he seems more concerned with the problem of Christians taking other Christians to pagan courts. Paul seems more concerned with the reliance on pagan courts here, where the rich can exploit the poor, and would do so, rather than use it to condemn homosexuality per se. He also rebukes the whole Corinthian church corporately for allowing this to happen rather than the few perpetrators actually involved in the lawsuits. Thus, if we were to take this passage and list of offences literally, then even the greedy would not escape. And if we, as the Christian Church today should be treated in the same corporate way as in Paul's day, then we would all stand guilty of this offence for the way in which the rich nations of the world - in Christian countries - have corporately exploited the poor - also in Christian countries - through our greed. Clearly then Paul is not primarily concerned with the list of offences, but moreso with the pagan practices of the Corinthian church - a church which should be washed, sanctified and justified in the name of Jesus Christ", and the inclusion of homosexuals in this list may therefore well be a reference to the pagan temple prostitutes who ritually engaged in same-sex activities. These practices were frequently condemned in the Hebrew Scriptures primarily because of their pagan nature and not necessarily because of the sexual content of their activities. Furthermore, It was common within the Roman Empire for male adults to keep boy prostitutes for the purpose of sexual activity. The boys were often slaves. In modern times, this would be considered extreme child abuse. Religious progressives, therefore, have often interpreted these passages as condemning men particularly who sexually abuse boys, men who engage in homosexual ritual sex in Pagan temples and men attempting anal rape rather than a typical loving homosexual relationship that we would know of today. Liberals, as well as examining scripture carefully within context, have often cited Biblical scholars - even of the Hebrew Bible - to back up their claims of the existence of homosexuality within the Bible. They believe that it is reasonable to assume that many loving gay and lesbian relationships existed in Biblical times. Rabbi Gershon Caudill once wrote: "Like all indigenous peoples, the Jews were not overly concerned about male homosexuality, where two men lived together in a monogamous, sexual relationship. As a rule, it did not get any notice....The Talmud does not record a single instance of a person being brought before the Sanhedrin on the charge of homosexual activity." They view the Bible as being strangely silent on sexual behaviour within a consensual, monogamous committed homosexual relationship. For example, they might identify the sin of the men of Sodom as explained in Genesis 19 as attempting to rape strangers as an act of humiliation - a common practice amongst pagans as an act of domination over conquered peoples. Alternatively, they might quote other biblical passages mentioning Sodom to show that the main sin of that city was their uncharitable behaviour towards strangers, and their uncaring conduct towards the poor, the widows, and needy. Paul, as a Pharisee, would have known well these verses and it is very plausible that if Sodom was compared with Corinth it would be the pagan practices that concerned him more than anything else. But there never seems any condemnation of a loving same-sex relationship such as that between David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi or Daniel and Ashpenaz whether sexual or not. Within the book of Romans, the Liberals do not have the luxury of knowing that this letter was written to a specific church to answer specific questions at a specific moment in time, and not as a general directive on Christian living. Unlike the Corinthians, Paul had neither stablished nor ever met the Roman Churches, a fact corroborated in Acts 28:14-15, and Romans 1:10-13. Therefore, on face value, this masterpiece of Pauline theology should be able to be taken as a more general edict on the conduct of a Christian. Thus conservatives regard Chapter 1:24-27 as a description of Paul's general view on homosexuality. However, if this is so, then in verses 29-31, most of us too, whether heterosexual or not, would fall into Paul's list of signs of unrighteousness - as we too are often guilty of arrogance, envy, gossiping and greed and even if we were not, we still condone, by apathy, the ways in which poor are oppressed and exploited across the world. To the more liberal, the passage takes on a different meaning and emphasis. Reading this letter it is evident that Romans is Paul's letter of recommendation for Paul himself. We are also told that Roman's is by no means a systematic study of Paul's theology where many of his ideas in other letters, eschatology, wisdom, and reconciliation are at best only mentioned in passing. Justification by faith, of course, is developed, as is righteousness. And it is in the latter area where this controversial passage sits. Reading in context, the verses in question are concerned with idolatry and righteousness. Liberals assert that, rather than Paul condemning homosexuality per se, he condemns unrighteousness. We are told that as a result of unrighteousness, men "abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another" [NIV]. Liberals will suggest that the emphasis her is not on a loving homosexual relationship, but on the replacing of a loving relationship (of any persuasion) for one of lust. This assertion is supported by the lack of any reference to homosexuality in the following verses and the list of unrighteous acts Paul mentions. Thus the Liberal will suggest that this passage's thrust is against unrighteousness and idolatry, and not homosexuality. There are many other passages, both in the New Testament and Old, that conservatives will insist condemns all homosexual activity, although liberals will disagree. As just one example, some cite Genesis 19, a passage that condemns homosexual rape, as proof that God hates all homosexual behaviour. Yet liberals would retaliate by saying they would never quote a verse that rightly condemns heterosexual rape and state that it applies to all heterosexual activity. Thus the scriptural basis for the acceptance of homosexuality is rather confused, as is the belief in the Christian Church as a whole. Even within the Anglican Church the issues are still controversial. During the thirteenth Lambeth Conference in 1998, a resolution was passed stating that homosexual acts are "incompatible with Scripture" by a vote of 526-70; however, it also contained a statement declaring this policy would not be the final word and research would continue. Yet in 2003, the Church of England announced the appointment of a homosexual bishop. Many Anglican traditionalists were outraged resulting in the candidate's withdrawal. Responding to these disputes, many Anglican provinces, primarily from Africa Asia, America and Australia, declared a state of "impaired communion" with their counterparts as a measure of the dissention and controversy over this topic. Despite there still being many dissenting voices across the world the Anglican Church has tried to adopt a moderate position with regard to all homosexuality. The Anglican Communion as a whole affirms the historic Christian teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman and that others not called to marriage should remain celibate. However, the Church of England considers a celibate person of homosexual orientation to be eligible for ordination to the priesthood - or even to be a bishop, even if the person has entered into a civil same-sex partnership, noting that "The Church should not collude with the present assumptions of society that all close relationships necessarily include sexual activity." As far as laity are concerned, the acceptance of homosexuals is very clear. In 2005 the Church stated that homosexual laity, even those who have entered into civil partnerships, are still eligible for the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and communion, and thus should be welcomed into the full participation of the Church, just as jesus himself would welcome everybody. So, the question is: to what extent do we rely on scripture to formulate our own theology? To what extent do those scriptures either condemn all forms of homosexual oriantation and behaviour, or condone all forms of homosexual behaviour, or which, of the number of stages between the two extremes is correct? Finally, bearing in mind the belief by most Christians that scripture is the Word of God, and also bearing in mind the teachings of love and acceptance, not only by Paul, but by Our Lord himself, where should the opinions of Christians lie? What would Jesus Himself do?