Homosexuality and the Bible, Part Two of Whatever

In my last blog post I touched on the always-controversial topic of homosexuality and the Bible. Specifically, I talked about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and how it really doesn't hold up as well as a condemnation of homosexuality as some people believe it does. I was planning on returning to the topic and discussing other Biblical passages that seem to condemn homosexuality and submit what I hoped would be a sound argument against the notion that you cannot be a queer or queer-friendly Christian. That was a month and a half ago, and while it may seem that I've forgotten all about it, rest assured that I have not. This is still a topic of great interest to me, and I would like to do my best to at least touch on the so-called "clobber passages" and defend my status as both a Christian and an ally of the GLBT community.

In my last post, I decided that citing the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was not a good way to "prove" that God hates homosexuality. While I do stand by that, I can understand why it's often used as a clobber passage. If we were to interpret the way so many conservative homophobes have over the years, it essentially says that God will destroy you and your home if you are gay. I can't really think of a harsher warning than that. If someone really wanted to scare someone away from being gay (as if that was possible), threatening them with fire falling out of the sky sounds like a good way to do so. Still, there's nothing in the Bible that explicitly states that the people of Sodom were killed for being gay, so using it as a warning against the homosexual lifestyle is questionable at best.

Since the story of Sodom and Gomorrah shouldn't really be used as a warning against homosexuality, the next go-to passage in the Bible used to condemn homosexuality is Leviticus 18:22, which reads in the King James Bible as such:

"Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination."

If that sounds bad, Leviticus 20:13 is even worse:

"If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

That is really harsh. I can definitely see why these two are used as clobber passages. They are also the passages that more than ever make me question my Christian beliefs. I'd like to think that Christianity is a religion of peace, love and forgiveness. I don't want to be told that not only are all gay people (or gay men, anyway) sinners, but that they deserve to be executed. It goes against everything that I've come to believe, and these passages are brought up so often that it's easy for someone to think that being a Christian means hating gay people.

Then again, just like the story of Sodom's destruction, these passages are open to interpretation. Yes, it is rather difficult to argue that these passages aren't talking about sex between two men, but as always it's important to know their Biblical and historical context. Leviticus 18:22 is part of the Mosaic code, which states that there are two types of sin: moral sin and ceremonial uncleanliness. Moral sin is deliberate rebellion against God. This is thought to be expressed in the original Hebrew text as "toeyvah," which becomes "abomination," "detestable" or "enormous sin" in many English translations. The transliterated Hebrew texts reads as: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee." If "toeyvah" means what traditional English translations would have us all believe, then sex between two men would indeed be "an abomination." Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on where you stand on this issue), homosexual sex appears to not be a moral sin within the context of the rest of Leviticus but a ceremonial uncleanliness. Ceremonial uncleanliness refers to coming into contact with a forbidden object or performing a forbidden act. An unclean act may have been perfectly acceptable for non-Hebrews, but it was forbidden to Hebrews. Those who were "unclean" were often put to death or exiled from their tribe.

I know that what I've said so far does not seem too supportive of my opinion that being gay isn't a sin. At a glance, it does appear that Leviticus 18:22 states that gay people are unclean, and that Leviticus 20:13 says that they should be put to death. Then again, Leviticus also states that those who eat shellfish, pick up sticks on a Saturday, cross breed livestock, plant mixtures of seeds in a field or wear clothing made from a blend of two textiles are also unclean. Religious conservatives are always quick to use Leviticus to condemn homosexuality, yet they all but ignore everything else that it warns us against. They are largely considered to be archaic laws that are no longer relevant. The New Testament even says that Christians no longer need to follow this code and that we are all saved according to a new covenant with God. To insist that we follow just one of these laws while ignoring the rest is ridiculous.

Of course, all of this talk about Leviticus condemning homosexuality is assuming that Leviticus actually condemns all modern same-sex relationships. The truth is that despite what most modern translations would have everyone believe, the true meaning of Leviticus 18:22 is actually pretty unclear. The verse could mean that all sex between two men is an abomination regardless of the context or the relationship between the men, but I cannot help but think that that interpretation was at one point simplified for the sake of conservative homophobes. When analyzing this passage further, one must remember that the structure of sexuality in Leviticus assumes that men are dominant and women are submissive. According to one interpretation by writer and rabbi Arthur Waskow, a sex act between two men could place one of the men in a dominant role and the other in a submissive role, thereby feminizing the submissive man and effectively turning him into "an abomination" since women were not regarded as highly as men in that society. This interpretation could mean that only certain sex acts that I'd rather not describe here were forbidden, not homosexuality as a whole. Other scholars have theorized that the passages in Leviticus that "forbid" homosexuality only do so in the context of pagan rituals, which would make sense since any Hebrews engaging in such rituals would be effectively disobeying their God according to their own religious beliefs. Again, this interpretation doesn't forbid homosexuality outright; it only does so in certain contexts. It's also interesting to note that at no time is sex between two women mentioned; Leviticus seems to be only concerned with the men of Israel.

To sum up this long-winded and possibly offensive-on-at-least-one-level blog post: yes, most modern English translations of Leviticus seem to condemn male-male homosexuality...maybe. The Scripture was written long ago and refers to a time and culture that was very different from our modern society. Many of the laws written in Leviticus are considered archaic to modern Christians, and in my opinion its very few mentions of homosexuality are open to enough interpretation to be disregarded as proof that all gay people are hell-bound sinners. People need to stop citing them as justification for homophobia and bigotry.

And yes, I'm well aware that the subject of homosexuality as a sin comes up in the New Testament. I plan to get to that as well someday. Hopefully, I won't wait a month and a half to do it.

Source:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm

Homosexuality and the Bible. Yeah. I'm going there (Part one of whatever)

For most of my adult life, I've had what I would call a love-hate relationship with religion, particularly mainstream Christian beliefs. On one hand, I believe in God and the teachings of Jesus. I believe that Jesus wanted all of us to love and care for each other no matter what, and that is a message that I can get behind wholeheartedly. On the other hand, my attempts to more fully embrace my Christian beliefs usually end with me being confronted with opinions and points of view that all but turn me off of organized religion. I believe in Jesus Christ, but I've found time and again that many of His so-called followers are horribly judgemental, elitist, prejudiced and even hateful people who believe that everyone who doesn't live as they do deserve to suffer in Hell for all of eternity. I know that's a very gross (and admittedly probably unfair) generalization of Christian conservatives, but when the most socially conservative right-wing Christians practically become the spokespeople of an entire religion in the eyes of many it becomes hard for a social liberal such as myself to identify with that religion. It's tough for me to just turn my back on my Christian faith, but it's also difficult for me to justify being a Christian sometimes. I don't like to hear about people who deserve to go to Hell just for not having the right religious beliefs, and I don't like being made to feel guilty or unsure of myself whenever I find that I agree with alleged sinners and non-Christians.

Over the years I've come to believe many things that the most conservative Christians might say are wrong. It's a long list mostly comprised of typically "liberal" beliefs, and I'm not going to go into great detail about it here. I've been able to justify most of my beliefs by saying that there is little to no Biblical evidence that says that they're sinful and wrong. It's church dogma that suggests that some of what I believe is wrong, and I've always been skeptical about organized religion anyway. However, the one major sticking point with me has been what the Bible allegedly says about homosexuality.

I'm not gay or bi myself, but I know a lot of people who are. These people are no different from me except for the fact that they find members of their own gender attractive, yet that one seemingly insignificant difference is supposedly enough to damn them to Hell for eternity. That has never sat well with me. If two men or two women fall in love and decide they want to be together, who are they hurting? How is anybody in society being affected by their decision? It doesn't make any sense to me that they would be branded as beyond redemption in the eyes of God, and it would be easy for me to write off this belief as a product of bigotry and homophobia.

And yet, there are passages in the Bible that do appear to condemn homosexuality as sinful. These passages are often referred to as the "clobber" passages since conservatives often use them to effectively end any debates about homosexuality, and probably because it really hurts to hear them quoted whenever the subject comes up. I don't see anything ethically or morally wrong with being gay or bi, but I do have a problem with people passing judgement on others for things that shouldn't be any of their business. And yet, if I were to listen to the religious right and accept most contemporary English translations of the Bible at face value I should view homosexuality and GLBT people as sinful abominations. That goes against everything that I've come to believe, and I cannot in good conscience look down on a person for being gay or bi. Yes, I know the Bible also says that we shouldn't judge others, but how can one believe that when many Biblical translations and even some contemporary teachings suggest that there are those who deserve it? I'm also not going to "love the sinner and hate the sin;" that just sounds condescending. The whole subject has been a bone of contention with me lately, and it has even made me question if I should even self-identify as a Christian.

Then again, I have never truly believed that the Bible was as infallible as many claim it to be. I believe that much of it was divinely inspired, but in the end it was written down by flawed human beings. Add that to the fact that it has been retranslated and reinterpreted countless times throughout history and it's easy to imagine that the meaning of some of the Scriptures have been lost in translation. That made me wonder if perhaps the so-called "clobber" passages were meant to be as damning as they appear to be.

There are about half a dozen major "clobber" passages that are usually said to be proof that homosexuality is sinful. I don't claim to be an expert on the Bible by any stretch of the imagination, but I decided to take a look at these passages myself. This blog entry is already getting pretty long, so obviously I'm not going to get to all of these passages in one post, but I'm hoping to address them all eventually.

Right now, I'd just like to focus on the first Bible story most often used to condemn homosexuality, that of the destruction of Sodom which can be found in Genesis 19. I'm sure just about everyone knows this story, but for those who don't Sodom was a city that was so corrupt and evil that God decided that it should be destroyed. He eventually decides that the city would be spared if ten righteous people were to be found there and sends two angels to find those ten people. They are quickly taken in by a kind man named Lot. Lot and his family prove to be very hospitable, something that cannot be said about the other men of Sodom. Before long, an angry mob shows up and demands that Lot send the two strangers out to them so that they may "know" them. Lot refuses to send his guests out to the mob and offers his two virgin daughters instead. The mob takes offense to this and tries to force their way into Lot's home. By this point, it is clear that there aren't enough righteous people in Sodom to spare it from God's wrath, so the angels help Lot and his family escape (except for Lot's wife, who disobeys their command not to look back at the city and gets turned into a pillar of salt) while God destroys the city with fire and brimstone and kills every other man, woman and child in it.

I've never really cared for this story, not because of what it's about but what it has come to represent for many people. To me, it's just a story of God punishing wicked people. The people of Sodom must have done some horrible things to deserve being wiped off the face of the earth. That much is clear, and I'm mostly fine with that. What I do have a problem with is the meaning that has been attached to this story.

The men of Sodom wanted to "know" the strangers in Lot's home. That can mean many things, but traditionally it is thought to mean that they wanted to have sex with them (the New International Version of the Bible even explicitly says that). Naturally, right-wing conservatives and homophobes have latched onto this interpretation and assumed that the unrepentantly homosexual men of Sodom were so overcome with lust after seeing two strange new men in town that they went into a sexual frenzy and decided that they needed to have sex with them, an act so disgusting and sinful that it justifies genocide. I have a huge problem with this interpretation for a few reasons. First of all, it's offensive. Regardless of what some people seem to believe, GLBT people are generally not perverts who are slaves to their sexual desires. They are no different from anybody else, and their sexuality is only a small part of who they are. Secondly, it implies that Sodom was destroyed because of an attempted homosexual orgy while completely ignoring the fact that God had already decided to destroy it before the events of the story even took place. Never is it mentioned explicitly that God is destroying Sodom for this reason. Finally, those that prescribe to this interpretation of the story rarely seem to take into account that the mob probably wanted to brutally rape and possibly kill the strangers. Rape is a violent act that is all about power, control and humiliation; it's a far cry from a consensual sexual encounter. Far too many people get hung up on the fact that what the mob wanted to do involved other men as opposed to the fact that rape is horrible no matter who it happens to or who commits the act.

Of course, those that see this story as a "clobber" passage never take into account the fact that to "know" someone can have a few different meanings. It is very possible that it was meant to have sexual connotations in this context, but it could also mean that the men of Sodom simply wanted to know who the strangers were. Sodom had recently been at war, so it would make sense if its inhabitants were wary of strangers. Perhaps they wanted to question them to see if they were enemy spies. Even if what they really wanted was to rape them, the rape would've been a way to humiliate and torture them if they were enemies. This was actually a very common practice with soldiers at the time. Such rapes were about power and humiliation, not sexual desire.

I'd really like to think that taking a closer look at the story of Sodom will allow people to see that it takes some pretty big assumptions and leaps in logic to assume that it was intended as proof that God hates homosexuality. Later verses in the Bible even state that the people of Sodom were destroyed because they were violent, inhospitable and uncaring. It's never once explicitly stated that their sin was being gay, and yet people have been supposedly reading between the lines and seeing that for hundreds of years.

Well, this first post turned out to be a lot longer than I had planned. I'm hoping I didn't offend or scare anybody off, but this is something that has been on my mind lately and I wanted to talk about it. Maybe if I'm up for it I might go through with my plans (yeah, right) to talk about the rest of the "clobber" passages and show that Christianity really shouldn't be as dismissive of the GLBT community as it seems to be at times.