On Gay Marriage and the Bible
We are required to keep current on international affairs for my world politics class, so this morning I went and checked BBC like I usually do. And then I had extra time, so I went to this wonderful site, Patch.com, which is hyper-local news from my hometown. I read around a bit and then came to an article about a proposed same-sex marriage bill in Maryland, and how my senator is going to support it. Fairly straight-forward (and, probably not too surprising given that this is Maryland). And yet it ignited a firestorm. (Check out some of the comments; you'll see what I mean.)
I know religion and politics are two things about which people feel really strongly, and of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. But the whole context of this debate has me a little worried and fairly confused. Ignoring the slippery slope and ad hominem- with difficulty, as it's pretty rampant- you have people saying "This bill restricts freedom of religion because the Bible is against homosexuality." Yet, at the same time, isn't it also restricting freedom of religion by outlawing it on the basis of one particular set of beliefs? In my opinion, the latter is more restrictive, because the bill would allow churches who object to refuse to perform the ceremonies, not let the people into the congregation, whatever they'd like to do or not do.
But this isn't actually my point (although the church-state issue is a valid one in the context of this debate). My point is to talk about my personal feelings on this issue, as a Christian and hopefully do so in a way that can be a frame for more civil debate and actual discussion of Scripture, not simply recite it dogmatically. The Word is supposed to live inside us, right? So we should examine it and think carefully about it.
Alright, so: Firstly, I consider myself a Christian first and foremost, above all other things. God is the center of my life; everything else is secondary, and done to glorify Him and accomplish His will on earth. This being said, I don't see how the laws of a state can in any way affect that. God's law supersedes all that, and Christians' loyalty should be to Him first anyway. ALSO, there's the fact that we are all sinners and Earth will always be imperfect. Therefore, why are people so ridiculously shocked by seeing more of what they see as imperfection? (Bear with me on the rhetorical questions. I know many of you don't believe and so they don't apply to you, but maybe someone who does will stumble upon this. Also, for you guys' sake [and because it's really REALLY long] I've put the actual examination of Scripture under a cut :))
I believe that the Bible was actually written by God. But some human at some point or another had to copy it out. Humans are imperfect and sinful by nature; what's to stop him from "accidentally" mis-copying something, or adding another word- or even doing so genuinely by accident? Man has been SO involved in creating the Bible as we know it- they passed it down (possibly selectively), they decided which books went in and which didn't, the Jewish scholars wrote back stories for people who were mentioned in passing- and I know man is flawed. The Bible is God's word, but channeled through men. And, as is pointed out by many pastors, though the Word is infallible, our understanding of it certainly isn't. Then, there's the fact that the English texts are from Greek and Latin, and many theologians will tell you the translation is imperfect.
There is a wonderful website called Soulforce and an article therein that is very sensitively, thoughtfully written about the Bible and its references to homosexuality. The author is a pastor who has studied Scripture, so I tend to believe he knows what he's talking about. But, more than that, it inspired me to look at the passages for myself, and make up my own mind.
Some will cite the Genesis story as evidence ("Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"). I've always thought this was really ridiculous; just because God didn't make Steve doesn't necessarily mean he disapproves. Like, he didn't make cell phones or cars or CLOTHING, yet most people don't think he's disapproving of those. Plus, there's already two creation stories in there, muddying the water for me. Basically, it's like, it's not mentioned one way or the other, so the passage is irrelevant.
Moving along here: Sodom. In this passage, there's an angry mob trying to rape a male visitor and the righteous man (Lot) who's harboring him is like, "No, take my virgin daughter instead." Presumably because homosexuality is just far too evil. Yet what Lot says is "'But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof'" (Genesis 19:8) To me, that seems like his objection is more to treating visitors badly then to homosexual activity. Plus, there's the fact that the visitors are ANGELS. And I personally think Lot knows this, because usually the Bible will mention when something like that is being hidden, and because he refers to them as "'lords.'"
As if that wasn't enough, there's also the passage Mel White points out in Ezekial (16:49-50): "'Therefore this is the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.'" So, PRIDE seems to come before Sodom's fall as well... not living up to God's expectations of charity and goodwill because they were too self-centered.
Given all of that, I readily dismiss the Sodom story as a rebuke of homosexuality.
Leviticus. What a book. I have a real problem with it, for many reasons. Most of it's rules are really out-dated and seem almost bigoted. So in this book we get TWO verses: 18:22, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." and 20:13, saying that a "man who lies with another man" should be executed. FIRSTLY, 18:22 could be read as encouraging lesbians, telling them it is "detestable" to sleep with men as they do with women. (Not the book's intent, I know, but I immediately thought of this, and found it kind of funny). Secondly, the website linked above says that this holiness code was written for priests, to set them above other priests. So perhaps it was only meant to apply to them. Or, hey, here's something I just thought of: maybe those passages are directed at straight people,for whom it would be unnatural and against how God made them to sleep with someone of the same gender. It comes in a whole list of other passages regarding sexuality, and all of those are directed at heterosexuals...
Nevertheless, I can't satisfactorily tell myself those verses DON'T condemn homosexuality. Tally so far: 2 are bogus, 1.5 aren't (0.5 because of the lesbian thing implied in 18:22)
Now, we're getting to the New Testament, the uniquely Christian part. Firstly, Jesus never actually says anything one way or the other, so it's really wrong (in my opinion) to attribute any of these sentiments to Christ. Secondly, the entire point of the New Testament is to explain that Jesus died so that our sins may be forgiven- it paints a portrait of a loving God who welcomes everybody who comes to Him (no distinctions between Jews or Gentiles, nor gay people and straight people). (There's another side to this, that you have to repent in order to be forgiven [according to some doctrines], and gay people aren't repentant for their actions. Yet, if they don't think it's a sin, does it count? God's law is written on the hearts of men (your conscience); you feel uneasy when doing something wrong. So, if they don't does that mean it's a sin for them?)
Romans: Paul tells an anecdote in the first chapter about some men who lost favor with God and "abandoned natural relations with women and became inflamed with lust for one another," (1:27) and God gave them over to this "depravity." As I said before, the writers of the Bible didn't know what modern people do about homosexuality (that it's not a choice, the genetic component etc). But God did- He understands that one's sexuality isn't a choice, and so if you're made straight and turn gay that's an issue of going against nature. But if you're born gay, could be a different story entirely.
Also, note that they lost favor with God and then "went gay," not the other way around. And the men who are being punished are those who "suppress the truth with their wickedness" (1:18); they "neither glorified [God] as god nor gave thanks to him" (1:21). Actions which do glorify God, thank him, and let the truth shine are righteous and are rewarded- mightn't this include providing genuine love, compassion and support for a same-sex partner?
In conclusion, I feel this passage is much more about keeping your heart focused on God than it is about forbidding homosexuality. And the language here "indecent acts with other men" (27) seems more about what exactly they did than who they did it with. I'm going to bump it into the first category (with some misgivings, if I'm honest, but still): 3:1.5.
Here seems like a good place remind readers about translations. My version of the Bible (New International Version) uses the phrase "homosexual offenders" in the 1 Corinthians 6:9 list of people who won't get into heaven. So, that phrase alone implies to me someone who is violent with his sexuality- definitely not kind, attentive, affectionate and consensual partners. But I've read other versions that say simply "homosexuals," and some with the even vaguer "sexually immoral." Likewise, my translation doesn't mention homosexuals in 1 Timothy 1:10 at all, while some versions do. Maybe the fact that there's so much variation in the specific wording of different translations should tell us something. Nevertheless, that must go into the "anti-gay" column, making the score 3:2.5 Pretty close, right?
I've wrestled with this for some time now. I don't feel the text pulling me definitively one way or the other. Then, one night at CCF (a weekly campus worship/Bible study) I came across Romans 8:1 "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" I immediately and spontaneously thought of homosexuals when I read that. There is no condemnation for those who live in Christ and follow Him. So it's okay if they are in a loving, supportive relationship and feel, in their Christ-devoted hearts, that they are appropriately walking the path.
Of course, that immediate gut reaction was immediately challenged by my logical mind in relation to the passages references above. BUT, I still think Romans 8:1 comes close to the heart of the issue. If people are earnestly following Christ, they're okay. Everyone sins, and will continue to sin, yet God forgives them through Jesus. The same would be true if homosexuality does indeed turn out to be a sin.
As for me, I firmly believe that God is love. Period. So we really shouldn't be throwing insults or slurs or discrimination to homosexuals, or anyone for that matter. We should treat them with love and kindness. (And use civility when disagreeing with people's views...)
On the marriage issue: I just had an epiphany, literally in the middle of that paragraph. Doesn't the Bible talk about all sexual relations outside of marriage as sinful? Even heterosexual sex outside of marriage is viewed as a sin in the text. Isn't it possible that homosexual relations in the context of a marriage would be okay, or at the very least less objectionable? Possibly. For me personally, the thought is too new to say one way or the other, but I'm certainly going to think about it and pray about it, see what the Bible says about marriage.
I think that all of this should be a personal thing to some extent. If you want to interpret the passages as being against homosexuality, and the message you get from the Bible, then that's okay. But you don't have to force that opinion on the rest of us and insinuate we're "bad Christians" for not believing as you do. (The ELCA, by the way, takes this approach too. You can prayerfully and conscientiously go wherever on the spectrum you'd like. I love the ELCA, I really do.)
I'm glad this bill is before the Maryland senate. It's getting a lot of people's attention, and making many believers pray. As long as those prayers are "Thy will be done on this issue" and not "MY will be done," I think God will come through for us and make what He wants to happen, happen.
-------------------
ETA: So, this whole 'Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?' debate, with it's 'oh, you'll ruin the definition of marriage' or 'destroy the sanctity of it' may be a moot point. Matthew 22:30 "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." So, it doesn't really matter if the marriages are recognized on earth; everyone is on equal footing in heaven.
This makes me feel much better about supporting the bill, actually. :)
I know religion and politics are two things about which people feel really strongly, and of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. But the whole context of this debate has me a little worried and fairly confused. Ignoring the slippery slope and ad hominem- with difficulty, as it's pretty rampant- you have people saying "This bill restricts freedom of religion because the Bible is against homosexuality." Yet, at the same time, isn't it also restricting freedom of religion by outlawing it on the basis of one particular set of beliefs? In my opinion, the latter is more restrictive, because the bill would allow churches who object to refuse to perform the ceremonies, not let the people into the congregation, whatever they'd like to do or not do.
But this isn't actually my point (although the church-state issue is a valid one in the context of this debate). My point is to talk about my personal feelings on this issue, as a Christian and hopefully do so in a way that can be a frame for more civil debate and actual discussion of Scripture, not simply recite it dogmatically. The Word is supposed to live inside us, right? So we should examine it and think carefully about it.
Alright, so: Firstly, I consider myself a Christian first and foremost, above all other things. God is the center of my life; everything else is secondary, and done to glorify Him and accomplish His will on earth. This being said, I don't see how the laws of a state can in any way affect that. God's law supersedes all that, and Christians' loyalty should be to Him first anyway. ALSO, there's the fact that we are all sinners and Earth will always be imperfect. Therefore, why are people so ridiculously shocked by seeing more of what they see as imperfection? (Bear with me on the rhetorical questions. I know many of you don't believe and so they don't apply to you, but maybe someone who does will stumble upon this. Also, for you guys' sake [and because it's really REALLY long] I've put the actual examination of Scripture under a cut :))
I believe that the Bible was actually written by God. But some human at some point or another had to copy it out. Humans are imperfect and sinful by nature; what's to stop him from "accidentally" mis-copying something, or adding another word- or even doing so genuinely by accident? Man has been SO involved in creating the Bible as we know it- they passed it down (possibly selectively), they decided which books went in and which didn't, the Jewish scholars wrote back stories for people who were mentioned in passing- and I know man is flawed. The Bible is God's word, but channeled through men. And, as is pointed out by many pastors, though the Word is infallible, our understanding of it certainly isn't. Then, there's the fact that the English texts are from Greek and Latin, and many theologians will tell you the translation is imperfect.
There is a wonderful website called Soulforce and an article therein that is very sensitively, thoughtfully written about the Bible and its references to homosexuality. The author is a pastor who has studied Scripture, so I tend to believe he knows what he's talking about. But, more than that, it inspired me to look at the passages for myself, and make up my own mind.
Some will cite the Genesis story as evidence ("Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"). I've always thought this was really ridiculous; just because God didn't make Steve doesn't necessarily mean he disapproves. Like, he didn't make cell phones or cars or CLOTHING, yet most people don't think he's disapproving of those. Plus, there's already two creation stories in there, muddying the water for me. Basically, it's like, it's not mentioned one way or the other, so the passage is irrelevant.
Moving along here: Sodom. In this passage, there's an angry mob trying to rape a male visitor and the righteous man (Lot) who's harboring him is like, "No, take my virgin daughter instead." Presumably because homosexuality is just far too evil. Yet what Lot says is "'But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof'" (Genesis 19:8) To me, that seems like his objection is more to treating visitors badly then to homosexual activity. Plus, there's the fact that the visitors are ANGELS. And I personally think Lot knows this, because usually the Bible will mention when something like that is being hidden, and because he refers to them as "'lords.'"
As if that wasn't enough, there's also the passage Mel White points out in Ezekial (16:49-50): "'Therefore this is the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.'" So, PRIDE seems to come before Sodom's fall as well... not living up to God's expectations of charity and goodwill because they were too self-centered.
Given all of that, I readily dismiss the Sodom story as a rebuke of homosexuality.
Leviticus. What a book. I have a real problem with it, for many reasons. Most of it's rules are really out-dated and seem almost bigoted. So in this book we get TWO verses: 18:22, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." and 20:13, saying that a "man who lies with another man" should be executed. FIRSTLY, 18:22 could be read as encouraging lesbians, telling them it is "detestable" to sleep with men as they do with women. (Not the book's intent, I know, but I immediately thought of this, and found it kind of funny). Secondly, the website linked above says that this holiness code was written for priests, to set them above other priests. So perhaps it was only meant to apply to them. Or, hey, here's something I just thought of: maybe those passages are directed at straight people,for whom it would be unnatural and against how God made them to sleep with someone of the same gender. It comes in a whole list of other passages regarding sexuality, and all of those are directed at heterosexuals...
Nevertheless, I can't satisfactorily tell myself those verses DON'T condemn homosexuality. Tally so far: 2 are bogus, 1.5 aren't (0.5 because of the lesbian thing implied in 18:22)
Now, we're getting to the New Testament, the uniquely Christian part. Firstly, Jesus never actually says anything one way or the other, so it's really wrong (in my opinion) to attribute any of these sentiments to Christ. Secondly, the entire point of the New Testament is to explain that Jesus died so that our sins may be forgiven- it paints a portrait of a loving God who welcomes everybody who comes to Him (no distinctions between Jews or Gentiles, nor gay people and straight people). (There's another side to this, that you have to repent in order to be forgiven [according to some doctrines], and gay people aren't repentant for their actions. Yet, if they don't think it's a sin, does it count? God's law is written on the hearts of men (your conscience); you feel uneasy when doing something wrong. So, if they don't does that mean it's a sin for them?)
Romans: Paul tells an anecdote in the first chapter about some men who lost favor with God and "abandoned natural relations with women and became inflamed with lust for one another," (1:27) and God gave them over to this "depravity." As I said before, the writers of the Bible didn't know what modern people do about homosexuality (that it's not a choice, the genetic component etc). But God did- He understands that one's sexuality isn't a choice, and so if you're made straight and turn gay that's an issue of going against nature. But if you're born gay, could be a different story entirely.
Also, note that they lost favor with God and then "went gay," not the other way around. And the men who are being punished are those who "suppress the truth with their wickedness" (1:18); they "neither glorified [God] as god nor gave thanks to him" (1:21). Actions which do glorify God, thank him, and let the truth shine are righteous and are rewarded- mightn't this include providing genuine love, compassion and support for a same-sex partner?
In conclusion, I feel this passage is much more about keeping your heart focused on God than it is about forbidding homosexuality. And the language here "indecent acts with other men" (27) seems more about what exactly they did than who they did it with. I'm going to bump it into the first category (with some misgivings, if I'm honest, but still): 3:1.5.
Here seems like a good place remind readers about translations. My version of the Bible (New International Version) uses the phrase "homosexual offenders" in the 1 Corinthians 6:9 list of people who won't get into heaven. So, that phrase alone implies to me someone who is violent with his sexuality- definitely not kind, attentive, affectionate and consensual partners. But I've read other versions that say simply "homosexuals," and some with the even vaguer "sexually immoral." Likewise, my translation doesn't mention homosexuals in 1 Timothy 1:10 at all, while some versions do. Maybe the fact that there's so much variation in the specific wording of different translations should tell us something. Nevertheless, that must go into the "anti-gay" column, making the score 3:2.5 Pretty close, right?
I've wrestled with this for some time now. I don't feel the text pulling me definitively one way or the other. Then, one night at CCF (a weekly campus worship/Bible study) I came across Romans 8:1 "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" I immediately and spontaneously thought of homosexuals when I read that. There is no condemnation for those who live in Christ and follow Him. So it's okay if they are in a loving, supportive relationship and feel, in their Christ-devoted hearts, that they are appropriately walking the path.
Of course, that immediate gut reaction was immediately challenged by my logical mind in relation to the passages references above. BUT, I still think Romans 8:1 comes close to the heart of the issue. If people are earnestly following Christ, they're okay. Everyone sins, and will continue to sin, yet God forgives them through Jesus. The same would be true if homosexuality does indeed turn out to be a sin.
As for me, I firmly believe that God is love. Period. So we really shouldn't be throwing insults or slurs or discrimination to homosexuals, or anyone for that matter. We should treat them with love and kindness. (And use civility when disagreeing with people's views...)
On the marriage issue: I just had an epiphany, literally in the middle of that paragraph. Doesn't the Bible talk about all sexual relations outside of marriage as sinful? Even heterosexual sex outside of marriage is viewed as a sin in the text. Isn't it possible that homosexual relations in the context of a marriage would be okay, or at the very least less objectionable? Possibly. For me personally, the thought is too new to say one way or the other, but I'm certainly going to think about it and pray about it, see what the Bible says about marriage.
I think that all of this should be a personal thing to some extent. If you want to interpret the passages as being against homosexuality, and the message you get from the Bible, then that's okay. But you don't have to force that opinion on the rest of us and insinuate we're "bad Christians" for not believing as you do. (The ELCA, by the way, takes this approach too. You can prayerfully and conscientiously go wherever on the spectrum you'd like. I love the ELCA, I really do.)
I'm glad this bill is before the Maryland senate. It's getting a lot of people's attention, and making many believers pray. As long as those prayers are "Thy will be done on this issue" and not "MY will be done," I think God will come through for us and make what He wants to happen, happen.
-------------------
ETA: So, this whole 'Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?' debate, with it's 'oh, you'll ruin the definition of marriage' or 'destroy the sanctity of it' may be a moot point. Matthew 22:30 "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." So, it doesn't really matter if the marriages are recognized on earth; everyone is on equal footing in heaven.
This makes me feel much better about supporting the bill, actually. :)