Rev Prof Hansie Wolmarans
A heartening and welcome change with regard to how society views and
reacts to the phenomenon of homosexuality is taking place. In 2006 same sex
civil unions were legalised in South Africa. Couples may decide whether to have
it indicated on their certificates as a marriage
or as a civil partnership. The legal
consequences for both are the same as for a traditional marriage.
An article
appeared recently in Time 26 Jan 2015 (pp. 30-34) titled ‘A
Change of Heart.’ It reports that there is a steady increase in main line and
evangelical churches in support of same-sex marriages, amongst others, the Episcopal Church USA, the Evangelical
Lutheran Church USA and Canada, the Presbyterian Church USA, and the
Evangelical Lutheran Church.
The movie The
Imitation Game hit the circuit in 2014 and is contributing to changing
people’s attitude towards homosexuality. It is about the famous mathematician
Alan Turing. He broke the German Enigma Code during the Second World War and,
in this way, supplied the Allies with a strategic advantage contributing to
their final victory. In 1952 he was found guilty of homosexual behaviour, fired
from his job and given a chemical castration. He committed suicide in 1954. Fifty
nine years after his death, in 2013, he was given a royal pardon.
It is high time that
Christians rethink their traditional condemnation of homosexuality as well as
same-sex marriages. Tragically, the secular and societal conscience seems to be
light years ahead of many denominations. It is important for believers to
listen to the fairly unanimous conclusions of the natural and the social
sciences, clearly state what the definition of sin is, to think through popular
prejudices and arguments against homosexuality and same-sex marriages, and to
explore how our encounter with Jesus affects these issues.
Insights from the Sciences
Opinions differ about how human sexual orientation develops in
individuals. A very complex array of biological, psychological and sociological
factors plays a role. However, there is not a single medical, psychiatric or
psychological professional association in the western world which regards
homosexuality a pathology, that is, a condition that requires cure or
treatment.
This is not to say that many attempts have not been
made in the past to ‘heal’ homosexuals. Not a single one proved to be
successful. It includes aversion therapy (involving the use, e.g., of electric
shocks), testicle transplants, and cliterodectomies.
Religious groups also developed various forms of
Conversion Therapy. It departs from the premise that homosexual behaviour is a
‘sin’ from which ‘conversion’ is possible. A number of professional
organisations denounce these ‘treatments’ and regard them as violating ethical
principles of health care and human rights—especially when parents force gay
minors into such programmes. These ‘treatments’ pose a serious threat to the
health and well-being of the subjects. Sometimes persons are kept in isolation
for months with serious psychological damage being suffered. Therefore
Conversion Therapy remains highly controversial. With good reason, it is viewed
as pseudo-scientific if not downright fraudulent.
There seems to be a growing scientific consensus
that sexual orientation is immutable. It is therefore often compared with left-handedness:
it appears in a small percentage of the population (8%-15%), it cannot be
changed, it is not infectious, and left-handed people live normal productive
lives. In fact, in some sports like tennis left-handedness provides a distinct
advantage (not to mention in marriage; my wife is left-handed and throws a devastating
left hook totally unexpected!). Finally, through the centuries there have been
ill-advised attempts to force people to change from left-handedness to
right-handedness.
What is Sin?
If sexual orientation is therefore unchangeable, can it be called,
classified and treated as a ‘sin’? Traditionally sin is defined as a transgression
of the ‘will of God’, or, more simply, of what God says. In this context, the
Bible is used as a source of reference with book titles, divided into chapters
and verses to make consultation easy. This definition, unfortunately, leads one
into serious difficulties. According to Exodus 21:7-11, a man is allowed to
sell his daughter to another man as a sex slave. According to 1 Timothy 2:12,
God does not want women to teach in the church. Both these prescriptions are
experienced by most modern Christians to be offensive to their moral
sensibilities. Therefore this definition of sin is felt to be impractical.
I prefer to define sin
as committing any act that unnecessarily harms others, yourself or nature. Rumour
mongering harms the reputation of another; therefore it is sinful. When
homosexuality is viewed in this context, the expression of homosexual love cannot
be viewed as a sin, because it simply does no harm to those involved, to
others, or to nature. However, homophobia, defined as the irrational fear of,
aversion to or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals, is a sin,
as it does harm others.
The Six Biblical Texts Used
Against Homosexuals
Against the background then that science regards homosexuality as
immutable and that a responsible theological framework would not define acts of
homosexual love as sinful, we can now have a closer look at the six the
biblical texts used to condemn homosexual love. I refer to them as the bullets
of the six-shooter Bible, because, like a revolver with six chambers, these
texts are used like shots against homosexuals. The texts involved are: (1) The
two stories of creation in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and Genesis 2:4-25; (2) The story
of the destruction of Sodom in Genesis 19:1-29; (3) Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
which forbid sexual intercourse between men; (4) Romans 1:26-27 which regards
sexual intercourse between members of the same sex as unnatural and a
punishment from God; (5) 1 Corinthians 6:9 which states that ‘sodomites’ are
not to inherit the kingdom and (6) 1 Timothy 1:10 which argues that the law was
created for evildoers like ‘sodomites.’ I will now briefly supply an
interpretation of these passages in their context.
Genesis 1:1-2:3, and Genesis 2:4-25
From the stories of creation it is
argued that God created the first exemplary couple as Adam and Eve, not as
‘Adam and Steve’, or as ‘Madam and Eve.’ Homosexual relationships therefore
contradict the ‘order of creation’ and are sinful.
Biblical
scholars agree that Genesis 1 and 2 contain two myths of creation. They are not
historical but mythical. One of the various functions which myths have is to
explain why things are as they are. The nice thing about myths is you can tell
it to inquisitive children, and they don’t follow up with incessant
never-ending questions, because supernatural agents are involved. I remember as
a child during evening prayers my Dad read about the death of Moses in
Deuteronomy 34. He believed the first five books of the Bible had been written
by Moses. So I asked him how Moses could describe his own death. He replied,
‘Well, God inspired Moses. Therefore God knew in advance how Moses would die
and dictated to Moses what to write.’ How do you argue against that? It kept me
quiet for the next fifteen years or so!
With
regard to the creation myths in Genesis, their etiological (explaining)
function is at the least as follows. The first story gave the reason why there
was something as a Sabbath. God created everything in six days, and on the
seventh day he took a well-earned rest. The second story is about why human
beings are mortal: they disobeyed God’s commandment not to eat of the tree of
knowledge. It also explains why females should be subjugated to their husbands:
because Eve seduced Adam to eat of the forbidden fruit, and, in any case, she
was created as his ‘helpmate.’ Both stories explain where human beings came
from. Obviously a man and a woman are needed. We therefore cannot use these
stories to make inferences about the sinfulness or the acceptability of
same-sex relationships. We also cannot use them to argue that wives should obey
their husbands as it clearly violates our moral consciousness.
Genesis 19:1-20
The story says that when Lot received two angels as his guests, the
males of Sodom wanted to rape the visitors. It is therefore deduced that the
destruction of Sodom is a punishment for rampant homosexual activity in the city.
A careful reading of the story reveals that it is not about loving
relationships between two people of the same sex; it is about the virtue of
hospitality. Lot was hospitable and therefore he and his family were saved. The
evil inhabitants, instead of offering hospitality, demanded to perform a
homosexual gang-rape on Lot’s guests. This is why they were destroyed.
Leviticus 18:22; 20:13
There are a number of images on the internet showing vicious looking
men prominently showing off a tattoo on their upper arms which reads, ‘You must
not lie with a man as with a woman: that is an abomination. Lev. 18:22’. This
biblical verse is used as a public display of homophobia. In Leviticus 18:22,
it is added that ‘They must be put to death ...’
The laws of Leviticus, however, is all about
creating a typical Jewish identity by prescribing modes of behaviour and of
fashion to distinguish themselves from their pagan neighbours. They have to
function as a unity; they must stick together. In the very next chapter, for
example, it is stipulated, ‘You are not to cut off hair from your temples or
shave the edge of your beards …’ These alpha males exhibiting their homophobic
tattoos conveniently forget that Leviticus 19:28 unequivocally states that ‘You
shall not … tattoo any marks upon you …’ This demonstrates how people tend to
quote the Bible selectively in order to strengthen their own bigotry and
prejudices. According to Leviticus 19:20-22, it is acceptable to rape a slave
girl. If she is not your own, you have to pay a fine. Leviticus 21:20 prohibits
people with defective eyesight to approach the LORD’s altar.
It should be clear
that we cannot accept the regulations of Leviticus on face value. They have
much to do with perceptions of purity and identity.
Romans 1:26-27
‘As a result God
has given them up to shameful passions. Among them women have exchanged natural
intercourse for unnatural and men too, giving up natural relations with women,
burn with lust for one another; males behave indecently with males, and are
paid in their persons the fitting wage of such perversion.’
Paul here refers to pagans who have same-sex sexual relations. He views
it as unnatural and regards it as God’s punishment for worshipping idols.
Clearly he says they have no control over their passions, as God brought it
over them. His argument reflects Jewish prejudices, based upon Leviticus, that
homogenital contact only occurs between pagans. Paul views it as a punishment,
because obviously pregnancy cannot occur. Fertility was regarded as the biggest
blessing from God.
Paul is clearly wrong.
I have spoken to many parents whose children are homosexual. They all witness
to how their lives have been blessed by these children, how talented and caring
they are, and how much they mean to them. They are not ‘cursed’ in any way. I
will discuss his statement that it is ‘unnatural’ later.
1 Corinthians 6:9 / 1 Timothy 1:10
‘…no fornicator or
idolater, not adulterer or sexual pervert [the Greek text has two words, malakoi
“effeminate” and arsenokoitai
“Sodomites”] …. will possess the kingdom of God.’ (1 Cor. 6:9).
In 1 Timothy 1:10 it is argued that the law is designed, not for good
citizens, but for ‘fornicators, perverts [arsenokoitai
“sodomites”], liars, perjurers …’
When we look closely
at the context of both verses, it is all about vices and activities which harm
societal order, like adultery, theft, extortion and gossip. Again, it has
nothing to do with two people who are engaged in a loving same-sex
relationship. The best translations therefore prefer to use the words ‘sexual
perverts’ or ‘paedophilia’ to rule out a reference to homosexuality.
From these texts it seems clear that the relevant authors of the Bible
generally speaking had knowledge of people engaged in same-sex sexual relations,
and disapproved of it. It is also evident that these texts do not express an
understanding of homosexuality as an orientation, nor of a loving relationship
existing between members of the same sex. Not a single text, therefore, can be
used responsibly to argue that acts expressing homosexual love are sinful. Why
would people then use the Bible in such a selective way to argue against
same-sex relationships? Probably because of our inherent tendency to want
people who are part of a group to conform. It makes therefore sense to have a
look at six popular arguments against it.
Six Popular Arguments
Again, I have reduced them to fit into my metaphorical six-shooter: (1)
It is unnatural; (2) Homosexual relationships do not last; (3) They are based
upon an unrealistic glorification of romantic love; (4) Children raised by
lesbigays start life with a handicap; (5) It cheapens the institution of
marriage and (6) We should not talk about ‘marriage’ but rather about a ‘civil
partnership.’ Again, I will discuss these arguments one by one.
Homosexuality Is Unnatural
The first popular misconception is that homosexuality is unnatural.
This is not true. Albatrosses, for example, can live for 70 years. One third of
pairs has long-term same-sex relationships. Same-sex sexual activity is recorded
in more than 450 species, from flamingos to bison, from beetles to warthogs, from
dolphins to orangutans, and from octopi to gut worms. Farmers often come across
male cattle and sheep that simply refuse to mate with females. Eight per cent
of domestic rams prefer other males. Homosexual behaviour therefore does occur
in nature. It is a normal part of the diversity in God’s creation.
‘Homosexuality is
found in over four hundred and fifty species. Homophobia is found in only one.
Which one seems unnatural now?’
Homosexual Relationships Don’t Last
One often hears the remark that homosexual relationships are of a short
duration and do not endure. This is contradicted by facts. Leonardo da Vinci
and Giacomo Caprotti had a life-long relationship. J Edgar Hoover and Clyde
Tolson lived together for more than forty years. Bruce Mero (a dancer) and Gean
Harwood (a music composer) was a couple for 66 years. They told their story in
a book The Oldest Gay Couple in America. They met in 1929 and lived
together until 1995 when Mero died.
Same-Sex Marriages Unrealistically Glorifies Romantic Love
The argument is also heard that people who propagate the right of
homosexuals to enter into a same-sex marriage unrealistically glorifies
romantic love. It is maintained that modern people romanticise too much about
relationships. Erotic attraction lasts but for a short while. Then something
more is needed to keep couples together, like having children. Same-sex
marriages should therefore not be allowed, because they cannot produce
children.
In reality, of course,
many couples with children get divorced. There are homosexual couples who
either adopt children, or have their own children through artificial insemination
and raise them successfully. In any case, we uphold the validity of traditional
marriages with no children and we certainly should do the same for same-sex
marriages.
Children Raised by Lesbigays Start Life with a Disadvantage
There are people who raise the concern that children raised by a
homosexual couple have distinct disadvantages. Since they are only exposed to
parents of the same sex, they may be disadvantaged by not having a role model
of the opposite sex. However, studies have shown that children raised by homosexuals
have no difference in intelligence, development, moral judgments,
self-concepts, social competence and gender identity. I know of many single
parents who raised their children successfully, and of many traditional couples
who made a mess of their children’s upbringing.
Same-Sex Marriages Cheapen the Institution of Marriage
Some people feel that the idea of a same-sex marriage mocks their own heterosexual
marriage. Perhaps this argument says more about unfounded prejudice than about
facts. There are many lesbigays who take a lifelong commitment and monogamy
very seriously and there are many heterosexual people who do not. There are
reality shows which offer marriage proposals as a prize. I think they cheapen
the institution of marriage (and they are legal!)
Same-Sex Marriages is a Misnomer and Should Be Called Civil
Partnerships
People who seem to be open-minded about the issue sometimes argue that
the concept of ‘marriage’ should be reserved for heterosexual unions. The
underlying principle is unclear, as a civil partnership is like a marriage in
all respects. Perhaps this insistence on using different words is nothing but
an attempt to ‘otherise’ homosexuals, and to set ‘them’ apart from ‘us.’ It
could therefore be regarded as prejudicial and hurtful.
The six commonly found popular arguments against homosexuality and
same-sex marriages do not exhibit a factual basis and are grounded on prejudice
and a lack of factual information.
Finally I am going to
say something about what it means to follow Jesus when exploring the question
of homosexuality and same-sex marriages.
In the Spirit of Jesus
One of Jesus’ core activities was to preach the kingdom of God as
consisting and of being hospitable to people marginalized by society. Jesus
therefore drew people right into the centre who were stigmatised and regarded
as impure or unclean. They were the lepers, a Samaritan woman, tax collectors
and sex workers. Following Jesus means to continue his work. This is
exemplified in the history of Christianity by dedicated Christians who
campaigned for the abolishment of slavery, support the feminist movement, stand
up for the rights of children and give voice to a creation groaning from
pollution and exploitation.
Jesus was critical of
meaningless regulations. He did not require his disciples to keep the fasting
regulations of the Old Testament. Once, caught plucking ears of corn on the
Sabbath, Jesus replied, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.’
The Jesus principle, for me, therefore, seems to be: An action is not wrong
simply because a Bible verse seems to label it as such. A thing is wrong
for a reason: that it is harmful. If the reason no longer holds and no
other reason is given, how can a thing still be judged wrong? Paul’s
words in 2 Corinthians 3:6 are interesting, that the letter kills, but that the
Spirit gives life.
Too many people use faith as an excuse to be intolerant, sexist or
homophobic, quoting verses from the Bible instead of understanding them in
their larger social and historical context.
Conclusion
I considered the issue of scientific insights into human behaviour,
supplied a theological definition of sin, analysed six texts from the Bible
used to argue against homosexual love, dismantled six popular arguments and
referred to what it means to follow Jesus in the twenty first century.
I found that there is
no scientific basis to classify homosexuality as a pathology, that is, as a
disease which is contagious. It is an orientation that cannot be changed. A
definition of sin was proposed as acts which harm yourself, others or nature.
According to this definition homosexuality is not a sin, but homophobia is.
From the six biblical
texts analysed, it is evident that the Bible does not show an understanding of
homosexual love and that no single text can be used to argue against the
expression of same-sex loving relationships. Popular arguments are based upon
prejudice and misinformation.
Jesus drew those regarded as impure and unclean to
him. We should do the same. In the church we should welcome lesbigays, confirm,
bless and support their marriages, and receive those who are called to the
ministry with open arms. In no way should they be discriminated against.
Perhaps an adapted form of Galatians 3:28 expresses this well:
‘There is no
longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male
and female; [there is no longer straight or gay], for all of you are one in
Christ Jesus.’
Note: Constructive comments on this article are most welcome. Use the Comment button below this button to have your say. You can also email it to a friend, but clicking on the email button below and following the prompts.
