This resource is also available in PDF format.
It was late, and for Stuart Matis another sleepless night. He paced around his room as he had many times before, thinking, agonising. It had all begun many years ago. When he was seven years old, Stuart had realised he was attracted to other boys. He hadn’t been sure exactly what that meant, but as a Mormon he knew it was wrong, an ‘abominable sin’.
And so he had kept it secret, kept it bottled up inside so tightly that he didn’t dare be close to the family he loved in case he let it out. He had tried to be good at school and to attend every church activity he could, all to make up for his dirty secret. He had prayed for God to change him, he had searched endlessly for an answer but found none. Not knowing what to do, he turned to his local bishop for advice. “If this is a choice between life and the church, you should choose life,” he had told him. But how could there be life without the church?
He had eventually been able to tell his family, and they had accepted him. But he could still not reconcile his sexuality with his faith. A few times he had visited some gay clubs, but he did not fit in there. Neither did he fit in at church where he was forced to keep his sexuality suppressed, facing the constant embarrassment of people encouraging him to settle down with a ‘nice Mormon girl’.
After pacing round his room that night, Stuart sat down to write a letter. “Straight people have absolutely no idea what it is like to grow up gay in this church. It is a life of constant torment, self-hatred and internalised homophobia.” “I engaged my mind in a false dilemma: either one was gay or one was a Christian. As I believed I was a Christian, I believed I never could be gay.”
He then drove to the church headquarters and wrote one more note, “do not resuscitate,” then shot himself in the head.1
There are no easy answers to a tragedy such as this. Did the church establishment fail this troubled young man? Was Stuart's dilemma really a false one, unable to be reconciled? Unfortunately, Stuart's story is all too common. A new-found acceptance of homosexual lifestyles is flooding our culture, putting pressure on traditional churches and beliefs like never before. Many are confused, not knowing what to believe. Does God really condemn homosexuality? Are homosexual desires unable to be changed? How should a church community deal with homosexual people? Torn between church teachings and their own experiences, many end up losing their faith or, like Stuart, their lives.
Homosexual activists and conservative Christians tend to view each other with mistrust and suspicion – each often woefully ignorant of the other's true beliefs. With this in mind, it is important to furnish ourselves fully with the facts and issues at play so that we will be able to wisely and sensitively deal with them. We need to explore history to see the prevalence of homosexuality and attitudes toward it over time. We also need to carefully study God's word to find his revealed will. I wish to do this from a non-denominational perspective in an attempt to maintain the unity that Christ prayed for (John 17:20-23). If we can come to a solid understanding of God's truth on the matter, we will then be able to be his faithful witnesses and instruments in this world.
When dealing with a controversial issue such as this, the words we use are crucial. Emotionally charged words are not constructive and distract our attention from what is really at issue. Often we can lose ourselves in needless debates caused by a simple misunderstanding of one another's terminology. It is important that we be clear and purposeful with our language to avoid such confusion.
This is particularly difficult in the context of homosexuality since society's understanding of homoeroticism has altered so much over time, leaving no consistency in language dealing with it. No language has had a word to describe homosexuality as a broad concept so words were coined, such as 'homosexual', which have often been used in a confusing variety of ways.2 Another example is the word 'gay', which originally meant “light-hearted and carefree” (OED). It has come to refer to people with a homosexual identity and their lifestyle, though I have avoided it as its meaning is has no clear definition – its interpretation can vary from a snide insult to a source of pride. The word 'queer' falls into the same category – although used in many academic circles it too can be interpreted to mean almost any unusual behaviour.
Instead, I have stuck with the word 'homosexual' as it carries with it the least innuendo while being clear enough in readers' minds. I use 'homosexuality' in the broadest possible sense relating to romantic or sexual feelings for a person of the same gender. Where this meaning needs to be clarified I have done so by adding words such as 'homosexual behaviour', meaning sexual acts between individuals of the same gender; or 'homosexual orientation', meaning a predominant romantic or sexual attraction to people of the same gender; or 'homosexual identity', the understanding of homosexuality as a self-defining trait.
In the words of King Solomon, “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Homosexuality is by no means a recent phenomenon. References to same-sex relationships stretch back as far as recorded history, although many of the earliest of these are disputed and inconclusive. An example of this is the tomb in Egypt of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep, dating to the Fifth Dynasty (c. 2400 bc). Wall paintings show the pair embracing in a particularly intimate manner (according to Egyptian custom), and their joint burial is also a rarity. There is no explicit description of their relationship, yet their tomb has become an attraction for homosexual travellers from around the world. The pair both had wives and children, and there is no other evidence of male homosexual relationships in ancient Egypt – leading some to conclude they were twins, possibly conjoined.3 In any case, this provides an example of how readily some will grasp onto history to establish legitimacy – however tenuous – and how careful we must be to evaluate the evidence and determine truth.
There is a large amount of evidence showing homosexual activity in many other cultures. The Chinese kept detailed records of their society, which often show a distinct proclivity towards homosexual liasons. It was referred to as fēntáo, the “love of the shared peach”. The earliest reliable record shows a ruler of the state of Wei taking a homosexual lover (c. 500 bc),4 and it is also believed that no less than ten of the first emperors of the Han Dynasty (c. 200 bc) all took male lovers.5 Homosexuality was also referred to as the “love of the cut sleeve”, referring to the story of a Han emperor who, when his lover had fallen asleep on his arm, delicately cut off his sleeve to avoid waking him.6
Such activities, however, were not an exclusive arrangement. Confucian values held the continuation of family very highly, so homosexual liasons were tolerated just as long as they did not interfere with family life.7 It was considered a pleasant and harmless diversion – there are many surviving pieces of Chinese art depicting male lovers quite candidly. This behaviour seems to have been tolerated up until the introduction of Communism in 1949 and the Cultural Revolution of 1966-69 when thousands were persecuted for opposing Mao's values.8
The Japanese were heavily influenced by Chinese culture. The Tale of Genji, a novel dating from about ad 1020, speaks openly of various homosexual desires and activities.9 In the twelfth century, homosexuality appears to have been common in all-male Buddhist monasteries,10 while the growth of the samurai warrior class also involved sexual relationships between older samurai and young apprentice boys. It was thought these relationships aided the maturing of the apprentices and that their love for their mentor would help give them a brave fighting spirit.11 By the sixteenth century, homosexuality had become so widespread that Jesuit travellers from Europe were shocked at what they saw.12 A homosexual cult developed around the Kabuki theatre, in which male actors played female roles and sometimes engaged in prostitution, helping to further popularise the idea of same-sex relationships.13 However, in the late nineteenth century this hedonism began to be frowned upon as Japan sought to emulate Western values which considered homosexuality immoral. In modern Japan, homosexuality has been silently tolerated – practised by some but generally not spoken of.14
The world of Ancient Greece gives us the most reliable early example of same-sex relationships. It is also significant as it provides the cultural background for much early Christian writing, and indeed Western thought. The origins of homosexuality in Greece date back to the warriors of ancient Crete and Sparta in the sixth century bc. In a manner similar to the Japanese samurai, hardened warriors would take on a young protégé with whom he would form an erotic bond.15 As society became more sophisticated these kinds of relationships found their way into the wider community – men would often form a relationship with a slave or a pupil. Male beauty was greatly admired and featured prominently in Greek art and literature.16 This practise, known as pederasty, was not unique to men – there are records of homoerotic literature from a school for girls on the island of Lesbos (giving rise to the term 'lesbian').17 It should be noted that the partners in these relationships were not considered equals. It was not intended for the youth to experience pleasure, only loyalty and devotion – pleasure belonged to the mature partner.18 But despite this rampant same-sex activity, most men and women still married and had children.19
Pederasty had become commonplace by the time Greece reached its classical period (fifth century bc).20 It was widely practiced by the elite and even found a place in their mythology. Zeus, king of the gods, was said to have fallen in love with the youth Ganymede and come down in the form of an eagle to take him away to be his cup-bearer. Athens' foremost philosophers and thinkers frequently discussed the topic of male love. Many believed that love between males was more sophisticated and refined than love with women21 – some even suggesting it was impossible to feel real love for a woman (Plutarch 'Erotikos' 750c).22 Plato spoke glowingly of homosexual love through a character in his 'Symposium':
I for my part am at a loss to say what greater blessing a man can have in his earliest youth than an honourable [male] lover. ('Symposium' 178c)23
However, later in his life Plato spoke against such love in his 'Laws' (Book VIII). The nature of these classical dialogues renders it difficult to determine which characters represented the author's views. It is clear, though, that despite widespread acceptance of same-sex love, this was not universal; there were dissenting views among the philosophers who sometimes straddled the fence on the issue, unable to agree on the merits of same-sex relationships.
The halcyon days of the Greeks were short lived, but many of their ideas lived on. The Romans followed in their footsteps, being great admirers of their philosophy and architecture – even adding Greek gods to their own pantheon. However, the Romans, were more practical people and were neither as idealistic or so swayed by beauty. While they maintained the tradition of pederasty, it was tolerated rather than praised. Rather than being held as a noble pursuit it came to be involved with slavery and prostitution. It was considered shameful for a man to be the passive partner (typically a slave), athough it was quite acceptable for him to assume the active role – taking one or many lovers.24 This was practised by no less than the emperors themselves – indeed the historian Edward Gibbon famously quipped that “of the first fifteen emperors Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct”.25 It is against this social background that the New Testament was written.
The Jews had long held a negative view of same-sex relationships.26 They viewed a man's seed to be sacred so it was considered sinful for it to be wasted without chance of procreation.27 Writers such as Philo of Alexandria and Josephus did not shy away from condemning Greek and Roman contemporaries for their same-sex habits.28 Jewish people earned ridicule for standing against the social currents of the time, but they were proud of their distinctive traditions, and often smugly contemptuous of the 'pagans' and their lifestyles.
Early Christians do not seem to have deviated from the Jewish position. Some of the earliest writings of the Early Christian Fathers denounce same-sex relationships just as Philo and Josephus had. The earliest of these is the Didache (c. 70 ad) “Do not corrupt boys” (Didache 2:2).29 Justin Martyr was scathing in his criticism of the use of children as temple prostitutes, “others are admittedly mutilated for purposes of sodomy, and treat this as part of the mysteries of the mother of the gods” (First Apology 27, c. 155 ad).30 Justin, though brought up a Roman, was unafraid to confront the emperor himself over the immorality he saw in Roman society.
When the emperor Constantine gave official sanction to Christianity in 313 a shift in morality began to occur among the populace. As Christianity became accepted by the general population and those in power, its more restrictive values and morals began to replace the looseness that had often characterised the Romans.31 But this influence also ran the other way, for the increasing popularity of Christianity also saw the morals of many within the church become more worldly. Indeed, by the late fourth century Christians in Antioch were openly engaging in same-sex relationships, drawing a sharp rebuke from St John Chrysostom, archbishop of Constantinople:
These very people who have been nourished by Godly doctrine, who instruct others in what they ought and ought not to do, who have heard the scriptures brought down from heaven, these do not consort with prostitutes as fearlessly as they do with young men. ('Adversus Oppugnatores Vitae Monasticae' 3.8)32
At about this time, Augustine became an influential presence in church thinking. In his 'Confessions', he revealed his worldly youth including a possibly homoerotic attachment to a young man. But all this was put behind him when he converted to Christianity, though not without much guilt.33 His attitude towards sex was quite repressive, perhaps influenced by memories of his past and his ongoing struggles with sin. It was he who popularised the idea among Christians that sex was solely for procreation.34 This negative view of sex, even within marriage, helped to cement attitudes against any alternative forms of sexual expression.
The rise of monasticism also posed a challenge with its exclusive same-sex environments. There are even some examples of poetry penned by monks extolling same-sex love. The Rule of St Benedict (early sixth century) was written to establish some order within monastic communities and included provisions for abbotts to supervise the monk's sleeping arrangements, doubtless to deter any possible temptation. This scenario was considered to be enough of a threat that St Benedict's rule was ratified by the Council of Tours in 567.35
Despite the surge of anti-homosexual feeling brought about by Christianity, states were still slow to reflect this in law. The Roman empire was crumbling and being overtaken by barbarian armies, leaving no consistent body of law. The Theodosian Code, enacted in 390, made male prostitution punishable by death, although emperors were satisfied to continue collecting taxes on this prostitution until around 500. The Byzantine emperor Justinian held a somewhat paranoid view of homosexuals, blaming them as the cause for all sorts of natural disasters. Under his rule homosexual relations were outlawed, although this law was also rarely used to prosecute any offenders.36
As Western Europe plunged into the Dark Ages, we can get an insight into people's attitudes through the eyes of the Penetentials. These were people who, beginning in Ireland in the sixth century, sought absolution from God through penance rather than through grace. To this end, they compiled copious lists of punishments for whatever sins they could imagine. These punishments varied in severity from list to list, but all considered same-sex relations to be sinful and warranting penance.37 Their peculiar understanding of forgiveness came to be viewed as heretical but their value remains as a witness to the morality of the day.
By the early Middle Ages, the Catholic church had consolidated its authority in Europe, keeping a tight rein on 'official' doctrine. The resolutions from the Third Lateran Council (1179) contain the first unequivocal condemnation of homosexual acts in the general canon law. Sex was prohibited between men, and proclaimed an “unnatural vice” (Canon 11).38 A century later, the influential theologian St Thomas Aquinas reflected this same idea:
Copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the apostle states (Romans 1:27): and this is called the “vice of sodomy". (Summa Theologica II:II:Q154:Art. 11)39
These documents display a more hard-line position being taken by the church. During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries attitudes towards minority groups and dissenters grew much more intolerant.40 Jews were persecuted, 'witches' burned at the stake and the feared Inquisition took its roots. Despite this hostility, homosexuality was still not unheard of. England's King Edward II was rumoured to have had several male lovers, though his ignoble murder (according to legend41) suggests the viciousness of opinion against such behaviour.
Here we must take a brief aside. This rising intolerance is viewed by some historians as the first real condemnation of homosexuality shown by the church at an official level, representing a shift in the church's position. One such historian was Dr John Boswell,42 who argued that despite the objections of some within the church, homosexuality was mostly accepted until the twelfth century, when the church began to re-interpret biblical passages to suit their own prejudices. He suggests that the casualness with which homosexuality was defended and the vehemence with which it was condemned shows that acceptance was the majority opinion.43 This is a cynical view of history, supposing people are more motivated by evil motives than good. What this really suggests is that opposition to homosexuality was the more strongly held view.
The church undoubtedly has a chequered history in terms of regulating and maintaining morality amongst its members and leaders. Dr Boswell rightly contrasts the heavy-handed treatment of homosexuals and other minorities with the lax attitudes towards greed and violence.44 This kind of hypocrisy is not unique, indeed similar conduct drew Jesus' sharpest rebukes of the Pharisees. So for Dr Boswell to read this as a deliberate act of opression outside of religion fails to see this for what it is: sinful people imperfectly living and applying God's law. We can no more assume that their position on homosexuality was wrong than we can assume that their attitudes toward greed were righteous.
Dr Boswell most famously caused a stir among academic circles with his assertion that the early church even conducted same-sex commitment services – a precursor to homosexual marriage. The ceremonies he refers to are based on the ancient adelphopoiesis (brother making) liturgy which originated in Greece in the eighth century, which was in turn based on an even older tradition.45 One supposed example of such a union was that between St Sergius and St Bacchus, two Christians in the late third century. They were Roman soldiers in the service of the local governor who denounced them, perhaps out of envy or suspicion of their religion, and they were martyred together.46 Their relationship is described in very intimate terms, but there is no indication that there was anything more than a close friendship between them. They call each other 'brother' which, despite Dr Boswell's assertions, is hardly conclusive evidence of a romance.47 Similarly their iconic image (see front cover), rather than showing a wedding with Christ overhead as 'best man', shares more in common with other depictions of paired martyrs of the time, with Christ watching over them.
This tradition of adelphopoiesis has in fact continued within the Eastern Orthodox church. One writer recounts her own experience of the rite while travelling in the Middle East, when she and a friend were joined together as 'sisters'. This was done to celebrate friendship, not any kind of sexual union. She then goes on to criticise Dr Boswell for his opportunistic use of ancient manuscripts, often reading in sexuality where there is none suggested (such as his reading of the word 'brother', above).48 Others have also criticised Dr Boswell's ideas, pointing out that these unions, unlike marriage, never carried the idea of forming a family unit – merely the recognition and blessing of a friendship.49
It is nevertheless entirely possible that some through history may have found homoerotic overtones in this liturgy, and may have even participated in it with that understanding – the church has often seen members with homosexual tendencies. Yet it seems to me there is little evidence to suggest adelphopoiesis represents an institutional acceptance of homosexuality. Such an assertion goes against the weight of evidence that shows hostility towards homosexuals – from both church and state.
In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the Catholic Church's prohibition of same-sex relations influenced the growing field of civil law. In England, Henry VIII had buggery50 included in his list of felonies in 1533. But again, despite these laws, homosexuality continued to flourish in some areas. This time saw the beginning of the Renaissance, the 'rebirth', seeking to recapture the brilliance of classical Greek learning and philosophy. The artists and writers of the time could not help but be affected by the Greek's ideas on male beauty and male love. Many of the period's greatest artists such as Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci had relationships with young male models. Leonardo was charged in 1476 with 'unnatural activities' and though these charges were later dropped, few doubt there was some truth behind them.51 These feelings naturally found their way into some of their artworks.52
The Protestant reformers of the sixteenth century put every aspect of the Catholic faith under scrutiny, yet none disputed the prohibition on same-sex relationships. Martin Luther used a familiar argument:
The heinous conduct of the people of Sodom is extraordinary, in as much as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. (Lectures on Genesis III 255)53
An interesting witness to attitudes of the time is England's King James i. James was reputed to have had several male lovers whom he often favoured in royal affairs, much to the chagrin of the other nobles. In fact there existed a popular epigram, Rex fuit Elizabeth: nunc est regina Jacobus, “Elizabeth was king, now James is queen”. Yet despite his behaviour in this regard, James wrote against it and insisted that the translation of the Bible that he authorised maintain the church's position against it.54
Through the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries public opinion was firmly against homosexuality. Prosecutions for sodomy were still rare though, due to the difficulty of proving a case without witnesses.55 However, a new humanist philosophy based on science began to gain favour in place of religious faith. This saw an increase in tolerance for lifesyles previously considered to be sinful, as characterised by personalities such as Lord Byron and the Marquis de Sade. These sentiments ultimately saw France decriminalising sodomy in 1791 (after the Revolution), then spreading to the Netherlands in 1811.
Great Britain, however, resisted this tide. There is a common stereotypical image of a Victorian gentleman who is prudish and repressed emotionally. Yet beneath this facade homosexuality was not uncommon, especially among the educated upper classes. This period was captured by Evelyn Waugh in his novel Brideshead Revisited. While there is never a mention of sexuality, the infatuation Charles Ryder has for the dandy Sebastian Flyte is typical of many relationships in the period. Oscar Wilde was famously convicted for 'gross indecency with another male person'. The Marquess of Queensbury (father of Wilde's lover, Lord Alfred Douglas) had called Wilde a “somdomite” [sic], prompting Wilde to sue for libel. Yet this backfired when the weight of evidence presented by the Marquess not only saw him aquitted, but had Wilde brought down for sodomy – a criminal charge.56 In this trial Wilde presented his own justification for their relationship:
"The Love that dare not speak its name" in this century is such a great affection of an elder for a younger man as there was between David and Jonathan, such as Plato made the very basis of his philosophy, and such as you find in the sonnets of Michelangelo and Shakespeare. It is that deep, spiritual affection that is as pure as it is perfect. It dictates and pervades great works of art like those of Shakespeare and Michelangelo, and those two letters of mine, such as they are. It is in this century misunderstood, so much misunderstood that it may be described as the "Love that dare not speak its name," and on account of it I am placed where I am now. It is beautiful, it is fine, it is the noblest form of affection. There is nothing unnatural about it. It is intellectual, and it repeatedly exists between an elder and a younger man, when the elder man has intellect, and the younger man has all the joy, hope and glamour of life before him. That it should be so the world does not understand. The world mocks at it and sometimes puts one in the pillory for it.57
Wilde's reference to Plato shows just how influential Greek ideas have been. This speech drew appreciative applause from the gallery, much to the ire of the judge. Their support, mixed with the disgust felt among other circles, illustrates the conflicting values of the period.
Underground organisations for homosexuals had existed since the eighteenth century, and support for them grew into the twentieth century, along with other left-wing causes.58 These were supported by early studies into the nature and causes of homosexuality. The word 'homosexual' had been coined in 1869 by Karoly Maria Benkert, introducing the concept of homosexuals as a distinct group or identity, that was innate and unchangeable. On the other side of the spectrum, Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime oversaw the murder of thousands of homosexual men, who along with millions of Jews and disabled people were considered undesirables.59 This was intended to cleanse Germay of filth so she could return to her glorious 'Aryan" past. In the end all this probably achieved was to encourage solidarity amongst homosexuals and lend credibility to their status as a persecuted minority.
In the United States after the Second World War, sympathy for the homosexual cause continued to grow, despite strong opposition from religious conservatives and McCarthyist politicians. Alfred Kinsey's landmark report on sexual practices in 1948 paved the way for greater openness on the topic of sexuality. His surveys showed the incidence of homosexual conduct to be much greater than previously thought, although some of his methods have since been called into question.60 Through the 1950s and 1960s the civil rights movement stirred up passions throughout the community with many social values being questioned. A spirit of equality for all, regardless of personal characteristics, beliefs or behaviour encouraged support for various minorities, including homosexuals. Many people wished to finally overcome all the long-held prejudices towards homosexuality.61
This all paved the way for the iconic events of 1969 at New York City's Stonewall Inn. Homosexual venues like the Stonewall, in Greenwich Village, were not uncommon and to a degree were tolerated by the authorities. Every now and then they would be raided by police, but the management was usually given advanced warning so arrests were kept to a minimum. However, perhaps due to an approaching election, the Mayor John Lindsay ordered a crackdown. A raid took place at the Stonewall Inn early in the morning of the 28th June with no warnings. It is unclear how the violence began, but clashes broke out between patrons and the police. Word spread and people rushed in from nearby bars to be involved. The next evening a large crowd protested outside, continuing for the next few nights as the riots gained more publicity.62 This incident drew massive public attention to the issue of discrimination faced by homosexuals, and helped kick-start a popular campaign agitating for change. It did not take long. American states soon began to repeal laws against sodomy and in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its diagnostic manual, essentially declaring it no longer a disorder.63
Reforms were not confined to the secular world. Churches too began to follow this inclusive trend. The homosexual-friendly Metropolitan Community Church began in a private home in 1968, led by the Rev. Troy Perry. Within twelve months there were over 300 members.64 This church has grown to have congregations in most major US cities and has been a major force in fighting for acceptance of homosexuality within Christian circles.
In Australia, The first state to decriminalise sodomy was South Australia, under the Dunstan government in 1975. Since then all states have legalised same-sex relationships, the last being Tasmania in 1997 after a lengthy campaign.
In 1979, some doctors working with homosexual patients began to notice that many of their patients were suffering from rare diseases such as Karpoi's sarcoma and pneumonia. These tended to be found in patients with compromised immune systems, without which patients could not fight off these deadly diseases. These observations were first recorded in a low-key article in June 1981.65 This mystery illness was also spreading quickly – by the end of 1981 over 150 people had died (mostly homosexuals). The disease was originally labelled GRID (gay-related immune deficiency) but came to be known officially as AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). This new disease caused great fear within homosexual communities, but it soon became apparent that it was also affecting intravenous drug users and haemophiliacs.66 It was not until 1983-4 that it was understood to be caused by a virus, HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) which was transmitted through bodily fluids via sexual intercourse or by sharing blood.67 Some religious conservatives believed AIDS was God's judgement on homosexuals for their sin. This stigma still remains in some circles, despite the fact that more heterosexuals are now infected with HIV than homosexuals.
Recently, homosexuality is becoming a more and more everyday part of our society. Homosexual characters are becoming more common in the cinema, television and literature. Many cultural and political leaders are openly homosexual and the push for full civil rights is very strong. Denmark became the first country to legalise civil partnerships for same-sex couples in 1989 and others are following suit, though there is considerable resistance from some quarters in countries like the United States and Australia.68
We should not be surprised to see homosexuality occurring so frequently throughout the world's history. Fundamentally, human beings are just the same as they were thousands of years ago – the same feelings and desires, the same weaknesses. Yet how accurately does this history reflect God's will for his people?
We have seen how the Christian church has not avoided being influenced by homosexuality. In light of the increased acceptance of homosexuality in secular circles, many are re-interpreting biblical passages – explaining away any negative references to homosexuality. We need to look at these arguments closely, examining the word like the noble Bereans (Acts 17:11) to see what merit there may be in them. But we must also be wary:
For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires. (II Timothy 4:3)
The main scriptures dealing with homosexuality have often been referred to as the ‘clobber passages’ – used to ‘clobber’ homosexuals into submission. It is a sad indictment on Christendom that the Bible has gained a reputation for being used in this way. The word is the sword of the Spirit (Ephesians 6:17) and should be proclaimed boldly, yet we must speak to each other the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). It is my desire that this discussion will be read in that spirit.
Perhaps the biblical passage most commonly used to condemn homosexuality is the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Certainly it is the most well-known. In fact, the infamy of this story was such that the city of Sodom entered into the Latin vernacular as sodomita, meaning various types of homosexual or other perverse sexual conduct,69 and has persisted into modern English as 'sodomy'. Yet in recent decades it has been argued that this usage of the word is based on a faulty interpretation of the story; that the story does not condemn homosexuality as traditionally believed, and indeed this corruption has wrongly shaped attitudes against homosexuality for centuries.70 Approaches taken to justify this position are many and varied, but all focus on the question of what precisely was the sin of Sodom that earned its destruction.
The biblical account establishes the wickedness of Sodom early on, “Now the people of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord” (Genesis 13:13) although it does not specify what this sin was. Some time later the sin in the cities has become so bad that God decides to investigate himself to see if things are as bad as the reports suggest:
Then the Lord said, “How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin! I must go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me; and if not, I will know.” (Genesis 18:20-21)
The sin of Sodom must have been truly great to warrant such attention from God. Yet this seems an odd thing for God to do – surely he must know of their sin without having to view it personally? This shows us that despite the severity of the sin, whatever it was, God was not hasty in his judgement; indeed he is “a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing” (Jonah 4:2). This fact provides us with a poignant touchstone to keep in mind through the narrative, and this whole discussion.71
The crux of the story then comes when two angels, disguised as men, enter Sodom and find refuge with Abraham's nephew Lot. The house is then surrounded by men of the city who then demand to 'know' them (19:5). There has been much debate over the proper translation of this verb 'to know' (yāda'), and thus precisely what it was the Sodomites were seeking. Traditionally the word has been understood as Hebrew idiom for sexual intercourse (the NIV renders it “have sex with”), indicating that the Sodomites were condemned for desiring homosexual sex. Yet some scholars argue that here the word literally means 'to know', suggesting that the men of Sodom merely wanted to know who these men were that Lot had taken into their city – apparently without their knowledge or permission. As such these men were condemned for a lack of hospitality, a serious breach in ancient societies.72 Supporters of this theory point out that of the 949 times yāda' is used in scripture, only 10 times is it used to describe carnal knowledge.73 While this is undeniably true, yāda' is nevertheless used in situations clearly referring to sexual contact (e.g. Genesis 4:1,25) so a literal meaning cannot be assumed merely by weight of usage.
Whatever the Sodomites wanted, Lot was distressed by it, urging them to “not act so wickedly” (Genesis 19:7). If the men purely wished to get to know the men, surely Lot would have obliged and introduced them. Yet the mob nature of the crowd (all the city's men were there – 19:4) and Lot's reaction suggests a more malicious intent. Some commentators have claimed that it is simply this boorishness which the city is condemned for.74 This is more consistent with Lot's proposal to give the mob his two daughters instead, neither of which have “known a man” (19:8). Here again the word yāda' is used, obviously describing Lot's daughters as virgins. The idiomatic use of yāda' here strongly suggests a similar interpretation only three verses earlier, indicating that the Sodomite's intent was indeed sexual.
Nevertheless, some scholars point to the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament dating from the third-first centuries bc) as evidence that different usages are intended. The translators, who should have been familiar with such an idiom, chose to use different Greek words in each instance, despite the same Hebrew original; the men of Sodom desired to suggenōmetha the angels, while Lot's daughters had never egnōsan a man. It is argued that while the latter Greek word does have sexual connotations, the former does not.75 This however is misleading: although the word is rare, suggenōmetha can indeed have sexual connotations. It occurs in Genesis 39:10 describing Joseph's refusal to “be with” Potiphar's wife,76 and also among contemporary secular writings, such as Xenophon's 'Anabasis' (1.2.12) and Plato's 'Republic' (329c) and 'Laws' (930d), all with sexual meanings.77 In light of this there is no textual reason to doubt the sexual nature of the Sodomite's demand. It is difficult to know why the translators chose to change their vocabulary. Possibly they wished to use a term that was faithful to the original sense of 'know' while at the same time being somewhat more explicit about its sexual meaning.78
Of further note is a strikingly similar story in Judges 19 with obvious parallels. While a Levite and his concubine take refuge for the night in Gibeah, some men demand the man to come out so they can 'know' him (v. 22). The language is identical to that in Genesis 19. There is again an offer of a virgin daughter or the concubine, but the story differs in that the men choose the concubine, who is raped repeatedly all night. Here the sexual nature of the crime is unmistakeable.
Numerous references to Sodom and Gomorrah occur throughout the Bible which can shed some more light on the nature of the story. Firstly, their infamy caused their names to be used as bywords for great destruction (e.g. Deuteronomy 29:23; Isaiah 1:9) or sinfulness (e.g. Isaiah 1:10; Jeremiah 23:14). Likewise Jesus refers to Sodom in this manner:
If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. (Matthew 10:14-15)
This text has been used to claim that even Jesus himself connected Sodom's sin with a lack of hospitality rather than homosexuality.79 Yet here Jesus makes no mention of what Sodom's sin was or was not. The issue for Jesus is not a city's lack of hospitality per se, but their rejection of his message. Any city that rejects God's truth can expect destruction worse than Sodom.
More significantly, however, is an often quoted reference in Ezekiel which appears to specify Sodom's sin:
This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it. (Ezekiel 16:49-50)
This passage has led many to conclude that it was not homosexuality that caused Sodom's destruction: there is no specific reference to homosexuality and sins are mentioned that are not evident in the Genesis account. To make sense of this passage it must be understood in its context. Through Ezekiel, God is speaking to the exiled nation of Judah, who has been punished for her great sin. Throughout chapter 16, Ezekiel paints a lurid picture of Jerusalem's unfaithfulness to God. Despite the favour he has shown her, the love and the faithfulness, she has rejected him, her husband, and behaved like a common prostitute. Turning to idols she has debased herself with sin, in which she is worse than the sinful cities around her, even Sodom. The point here is not precisely what Jerusalem's sins were, or for that matter Sodom's. The point is that Jerusalem has broken her sacred covenant with God, abused her special relationship – something which the other cities did not have. For this reason her sins are considered more grievous than those of the surrounding cities. So to treat the list of Sodom's sins in vv. 49-50 as comprehensive or referring explicitly to the incident in Genesis 19, is misguided. Clearly Sodom was destroyed for many sins.
Despite this ambiguity, it is likely that Ezekiel does make reference to homosexuality. Included in the list of Sodom's sins is 'abominable things'. This phrase uses the same word (tô'ēbāh) that is used to characterise a variety of offences in Leviticus. Ezekiel, as a priest, would certainly have been familiar with the Levitical laws and could have used tô'ēbāh here to describe any of those offenses, including homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22).80 While this does not allow us to say for sure that Ezekiel intended to include homosexuality, given what we have seen it appears likely. Certainly there is nothing here to conclude that homosexuality was definitely not involved.
The New Testament gives some more insight into the sin of Sodom. Jude had this to say:
Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 7)
This clearly connects Sodom with sexual sin, however the only detail given is that they pursued “unnatural lust”. The Greek phrase here (heteros sarx) literally means 'other flesh'. It has been said that this refers to Jewish legends in the book of Jubilees concerning women having intercourse with angels.81 In the previous verse Jude does mention angels that have sinned, but he makes no connection between their sin and Sodom – they are only compared in their destruction. While the Sodomites in Genesis 19 do demand relations with the angels in Lot's house, there is no indication that they knew them to be such. The word they use to describe them is a generic term for 'man' ('ĕnôš). It is unclear what precisely Jude meant here by 'other flesh'. It may refer to bestiality, but given the story in Genesis 19 it is much more likely to refer to homosexuality. Again, there is no reason found here for supposing that the men of Sodom were not condemned, at least in some part, for homosexual desires.
Both the Sodom and Gibeah stories involve rape. Neither the angels nor the Levite and his concubine were asked for consent – it was demanded. This therefore might not necessarily condemn loving, consensual homosexual relationships.82 Yet Jude tells us they were condemned for “unnatural lust”, not violence. It was their desires that were evil, not just the way they were carried out.
Jewish and Christian traditions outside of the Bible give a mixed perspective regarding Sodom and Gomorrah. Early Christian fathers Origen and Ambrose, reflect Ezekiel's description, connecting Sodom with inhospitality.83 The historian Josephus includes the notion of pederasty, speaking of the Sodomites desiring to destroy the youthful beauty of the angels,84 while Jewish philosopher Philo also associates Sodom with homosexuality.85 Given scripture's varied refernces to Sodom's sin we should not be surprised to find other sources equally varied. As we have seen, Sodom's sins were many – these writers may have focussed on particular aspects of the story to suit their purpose. These writings give no further evidence against the traditional interpretation of the story.
Some have used Lot's lack of moral character (as shown by the offer of his daughters to the mob) to dismiss the story as a tool for moral teaching.86 Certainly Lot was not a perfect man. Shortly after fleeing Sodom he twice allowed his daughters to get him drunk so they could sleep with him to father children (Genesis 19:30-38). He also selfishly (and foolishly) chose to settle in the rich plains around Sodom, leaving Abraham to the less fertile Judean hills (Genesis 13:5-12). Nevertheless Peter tells us that he was saved for his righteousness, as shown by his distress at the Sodomites' demands (II Peter 2:7)87. There is no defense for submitting helpless women to be abused in such a way, but perhaps this shows what an evil thing it was the Sodomites wanted: it was so evil that the rape of Lot's own daughters was preferable to him. Lot's own failings in no way lessen the sins of the Sodomites. Sodom was unquestionably sinful, and its destruction gives a very sobering lesson about God's attitude to sin – all sin.
In view of all this, it is reasonable to conclude that the men of Sodom sought homosexual sex with the angels. Despite this, throughout the many references in scripture, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is rarely used explicitly to teach against homosexuality. While Sodom is notorious for sin and destruction it is not considered ubiquitous for any one particular sin as it is today. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for many sins, not one alone; the incident recorded in Genesis 19 is merely what pushed them over the edge. That some kind of homosexuality was involved seems clear, but that is not to say that all homosexuals will likewise be rained upon by burning brimstone. Such ideas have spurred untold hatred and violence in the Lord's name, but these attitudes undermine our Christian witness to those who are lost. We need to be very careful not to read too much into these scriptures.
While the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, like many narratives, is subject to all sorts of ambiguities, the Law of Moses contains some seemingly clear commands of God. Male and female prostitution, often associated with homosexuality, is condemned:
None of the daughters of Israel shall be a temple prostitute; none of the sons of Israel shall be a temple prostitute. You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a male prostitute into the house of the Lord your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are abhorrent to the Lord your God. (Deuteronomy 23:17-18)
The King James Version translated the phrase 'temple prostitute' (qādēš) as 'sodomite', which would seem to be a general condemnation of homosexuality. This, however, was a poor translation which has been corrected by more recent scholarship. While this verse clearly condemns male (and female) prostitution in association with idols, it says nothing about homosexual relationships in themselves. Male prostitutes are not singled out as being inherently worse than female.
The most significant and forthright laws in the Old Testament dealing with homosexuality are found in the book of Leviticus:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
This is repeated two chapters later, this time with a penalty attached:
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
The context of the passage in Leviticus 18 is a long list of forbidden sexual practices, most of which are forms of incest. God introduces this list by warning the Israelites not to behave like the Egyptians or the Canaanites (v. 3). The sexual practices listed were common among those nations about them, but the Israelites were to be different. They were God's people: they were to to follow his commands (v. 5) and be an example to the world. All of the verses up to v. 19 use the expression 'uncover the nakedness' (gālāh 'erwāh), yet when we come to vv. 20, 22 and 23 this verb changes to 'lie with' (šākab). Both are common euphemisms for sexual relations (e.g. Genesis 19:32),88 but the use of different words is interesting. This perhaps reflects a change in focus from incest to more general sexual acts. However despite the differing language, it is difficult to argue, as some have, that the sins being referred to are therefore in some way different. Intercourse with a kinsman's wife (šākab, v. 20) or with an animal (šākab, v. 23) could hardly be considered less severe than any of the earlier prohibitions (gālāh 'erwāh), or of having a different application.
The biblical writers frequently use euphemism and idiom when dealing with sexual or intimate matters, and this can complicate our interpretation. When removed from the culture of the time it can be difficult to determine how literally a passage should be read. The words translated 'lie with' (šākab [verb] and miškāb [noun]) literally mean to lie down, or a place where one lies down. Some take this literally to suggest this refers to a man lying in a woman's bed, which apparently was an almost sacred place. However, the context is dealing with sexual sins, making it a stretch to imagine that this changes here for such such an obscure prohibition.
It is worth noting that the Jews writing the Mishnah (c. 200 ad) understood these passages to be referring to homosexual conduct. The sin is seen as comparable to lying with a father's wife, such that a man comitting pederasty with his son or nephew has comitted a “double sin” (Sanhedrin 54a, 54b). Philo also plainly connects these passages with homosexuality and pederasty, highlighting the death penalty given in Leviticus 20 (Special Laws III 37-42).89 Although they were writing some time after the Mosaic Law, these writers would have had a much better grasp of their language and idiom than we do today. The most natural translation here is in accord with the traditional view that male sexual intercourse is forbidden.
There is also controversy over the severity of the sins described here. Both verses in Leviticus describe the act as an 'abomination' (tô'ēbāh). To our ears this sounds serious – the worst possible judgement – yet some believe that it relates only to a form of ritual impurity connected with idols rather than a moral wrong.90 There are several Hebrew words used in Leviticus to describe offences; 'āwōn, 'iniquity' means twisted or perverted; zimmāh, 'depravity' usually refers to sexual misconduct; tāmē', 'defile' is used often and relates to unclean things. The passage in question tells us that any of the prohibitions listed will 'defile' (tāmē') the people, make them unclean (18:24). Furthermore, in v. 22 the writer conspicuously avoids using zimmāh (as in v. 17), using tô'ēbāh instead, implying that the main issue is not necessarily sexual depravity but something else. The word tô'ēbāh often occurs in contexts concerning idolatry and paganism, and the purity of Israel from the idolatrous nations around her is certainly very high on God's mind when he gives these laws (v. 3, 24-30). This leads some to conclude that tô'ēbāh refers to things associated with idols that were forbidden in order to keep the Israelites separate (clean) from the surrounding nations.91 It would then follow that the kind of homosexuality forbidden here is only that which is associated with idolatry. This conclusion, however, does not take into account the whole picture. Tô'ēbāh is often, but not always, used of idolatry – it has a much broader meaning. The best definition would be an “essential clash of disposition”.92 Thus “the unjust are an abomination to the righteous, but the upright are an abomination to the wicked” (Proverbs 29:27). This then shows us that homosexual activity is not merely something that has been tainted by association with idolatry, rather it is itself somehow incompatible with God. It is as incompatible as light is with darkness (cf. II Corinthians 6:14-16; I John 1:5), a serious implication. It seems that “the point is not that some homosexual acts are wrong because they are associated with idolatrous cults; rather homosexual acts are wrong because they are themselves a form of idolatry”.93 Following an idol is the ultimate form of 'incompatibility' with God, and chasing after other incompatible lifestyles, such as homosexuality,94 in God's eyes amounts to the same thing.
The most common argument used to dismiss these laws is that, regardless of what they originally meant, they do not apply to us today. This conclusion is drawn from a variety of considerations. Some claim that these are laws of ritual purity that only applied to the priests,95 yet there is no indication of this in the texts. It is true that the book of Leviticus does deal with the rituals and duties of the priests (Levites), but by no means exclusively. The role of the ordinary faithful is just as, if not more important. Chapter 18 is introduced by the words “speak to the people of Israel” (v. 1) and chapter 20 is even more unambiguously addressed to “any of the people of Israel, or of the aliens who reside in Israel” (v. 2). The rules are universal: not only are native Jews forbidden, but also Gentiles who happen to be living there. In contrast to these two chapters, chapter 21 begins “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron” (v. 1), clearly deliniating to whom that section applies. The lists of prohibitions in chapters 18 and 20 clearly applied to the entire nation of Israel, not just the priests.
A valid concern is often raised about the applicability of these laws now that we live under the new covenant. We are no longer under law, but under grace (Romans 6:14). We certainly do need to be careful how we apply Jewish standards of purity in our lives today. Amongst the laws given were prohibitions on eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11), touching a leper (Leviticus 13-14), and wearing cloth of mixed threads (Deuteronomy 22:11). We do not baulk at violating these laws today, so how can we rightly choose some laws over others?96
The laws on holiness found in the Torah were undoubtedly important to the Jews. They pointed to the holiness of God, and Israel as his special people. No one could approach God unless they were pure and clean. To this end, even the smallest details of life were regulated under the code. Which foods could be eaten, work on the Sabbath, treatment of people suffering diseases and countless sacrificial offerings were all regulated and were to be obeyed completely. Nevertheless, the limitations of the law were hinted at several times by the prophets. Amos makes the point that observance of the rituals meant nothing without righteous living (Amos 5:21-24). Jeremiah spoke of a new, better covenant that was to come (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Finally, Jesus put the law into perspective through his ministry, declaring he had “come not to abolish but to fulfill” the law (Matthew 5:17). He did this by touching and healing lepers and bleeding women, people who should not have been touched under the law (Matthew 8:1-3; 9:20-22), and by teaching and demonstrating a proper application of the law (Matthew 5:21-7:28). Ultimately the law was fulfilled by Christ as the perfect 'Passover lamb' (I Corinthians 5:7; Hebrews 8:1–10:18). Despite this, however, Jesus never suggested that the law was not relevant. He told the Pharisees that there were “weightier matters of the law” to be considered, but stressed that the 'less weighty' matters were not to be ignored (Matthew 23:23). Paul teaches us that these laws were put in place to lead us to Christ, to act like a teacher for us. Every aspect of the law was good for its purpose, but now that the fulfillment has come, we are no longer ruled by it (Galatians 3:24-26; Romans 7:7-12).97 Thus we are no longer required to keep to every letter of the law, but we must recognise that these laws point us towards God – his character and will. For this reason, it is a mistake to simply dismiss any of God's laws given under the old covenant as a guide for us today. Through the work of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit we are able to obey the law in fulness, in spirit, unlike those who have gone before (John 4:23; Galatians 5:16-25).
With this in mind, how are we to deal with the laws we find in Leviticus? We should not approach them with a legalistic mindset (Galatians 2:16-21;5:18). Nor should we view them with fear and trembling, anticipating punishment, since God's grace and love cover us (Ephesians 2:8-9; I John 4: 17-18). Rather, we should see them as an embodiment of the image of God, a signpost to his moral character which, as beings created in that image, we should be seeking to reflect. When we see God forbid murder, we see his view of human life as precious and sacred. When we see the priestly sacrifices, we see the cost of sin and God's willingness to forgive. When we see God's Sabbath, we see the need for rest and the value of time spent in meditation towards God. And when we see God forbid homosexual conduct, it seems we cannot avoid the implication that it, along with all other sexual immorality, is a contradiction of God's intent for marriage and our sexuality.
Some have read of the unusually close relationship that existed between Ruth and her mother-in-law Naomi and seen evidence of a homosexual relationship.98 We know that Ruth was especially devoted to Naomi, leaving her own country and roots to be with her (Ruth 1:16-17). Claims that this was more than just loyalty are largely based on the following reference to their relationship:
Then they wept aloud again. Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her. (Ruth 1:14)
The word 'clung' here is the same Hebrew word (dābaq) used to describe how a husband will 'cling' to his wife (cf. Genesis 2:24), to some implying that Ruth and Naomi may have married. While dābaq is once used to describe romantic attachment (Genesis 34:3), it is also used of the way the Israelites were to “hold fast” to the Lord (Deuteronomy 11:22), and how Boaz implored Ruth to “keep close” to the girls working in his field. Dābaq literally means to stick to, often in terms of a loyal relationship, but the word is never used in the Old Testament in an explicitly sexual sense.
To suggest a sexual relationship here also ignores the broader story that is related here. Immediately before this reference to 'clinging', a forlorn Naomi has told her daughters-in-law how there is no hope for them as she has no more sons for them to marry, urging them to leave (vv. 11-23). If Naomi had in mind to marry Ruth herself would she have been this melancholy? Moreover, the substance of the rest of the narrative involves Naomi's plans to have Ruth marry Boaz. Naomi does suggest this for financial reasons (Ruth 3:1), but this still does not make sense if they already had an intimate sexual relationship with each other. Whenever their relationship is described, Naomi is Ruth's mother-in-law; there is never a suggestion this has changed, as it would if they had been married. Such a theory also ignores the impropriety of a sexual relationship forming between Ruth and her mother-in-law (Leviticus 18:15). This passage obviously speaks of nothing more than the close bond of friendship and loyalty between two righteous women.
The relationship between David and Jonathan is often raised in discussions on homosexuality. The possibility that David, a “man after [God's] heart” (Acts 13:22) was homosexual is eagerly attested by pro-homosexual academics. There is no doubt that David and Jonathan were very close companions, but was their relationship an erotic or romantic one? Some modern perceptions towards David have been influenced by artists during the Renaissance who gave us some timeless images of David, such as the sculptures by Michelangelo and Donatello and paintings by Caravaggio.99 As discussed earlier, numerous Renaissance artists had homoerotic tendencies which were often expressed in their art, particularly in their depiction of male beauty. Many of these works show a decidedly effeminate young David, lending the impression he was homosexual, although these give us no real evidence about David's true sexuality.
The love between David and Jonathan is described in scripture in intense and glowing terms. The first recorded instance is immediately after David killed Goliath (I Samuel 18:1-4). Jonathan was clearly impressed by this triumph and we are told that he loved David “as his own soul”,100 which was “bound to the soul of David”. This language shows how close their relationship was. Elsewhere we are told that Jonathan “took great delight” in David (19:1), that he “liked” David (20:3), and that he loved David “as his own life” (20:17). Most famously, David laments after Jonathan's death,
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
greatly beloved you were to me;
your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (II Samuel 1:26)
Such words certainly ring of a deep, even romantic love. The Hebrew word used here for love is 'ahăbáh (verb 'āhab) which is a general term for love. It can refer to the relationship between a man and wife (Jacob and Rachel in Genesis 29:20) or even sexual relations (Hosea 3:1). It is easy to see why some may read this in a romantic or sexual sense, but this is not necessarily the case. In general, 'ahăbáh refers to a “strong emotional attachment” and carries with it a variety of constructions, in a similar way to our English word 'love'.101 Indeed, God's love for Israel is described as 'āhab, so there is no reason to assume the love between David and Jonathan was sexual or romantic. Moreover, neither 'delight' (hāpēs) nor 'liked' (hēn) have sexual or romantic connotations. David and Jonathan are said to have kissed (20:41), which some see as an erotic suggestion,102 though kissing was a common form of greeting between men at the time, and remains so in the Middle East to this day. None of these instances provide any definitive proof of an erotic relationship. The possibility of any such overtones will need to be determined by their context.
On several occasions David and Jonathan form covenants with each other, which some have suggested are a form of marriage.103 The first covenant is made shortly after they meet when David has triumphed over Goliath (18:3-4). Jonathan is the initiator and, motivated by his love for David, removes his robe and armour, giving them to David as a symbol of the covenant. Some time later, Saul becomes jealous of David's growing popularity, and tries to have him killed. Whilst David is on the run from Saul, he twice more forms a covenant with Jonathan (20:16-17; 23:18). One covenant is made with the words, “May the Lord seek out the enemies of David” (20:16). These do not appear to be particularly romantic occasions for a wedding.104 Given the context of David being constantly under threat by Jonathan's father Saul, the covenants seem to be more about protection and loyalty than romance. A loyalty based on affection, to be sure, but strategic nonetheless.
At one point, Saul insults Jonathan over his relationship with David, which some interpret as a homophobic slur.105
Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, “You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness? (I Samuel 20:30)106
Saul's fiery language here makes it difficult to make sense of his meaning. Plainly Saul is unimpressed with Jonathan's covenant and loyalty to David, but the nature of the insult raises some questions. The KJV uses the word 'confusion' in place of 'shame' which more easily lends itself to a homosexual interpretation, implying that by partnering with David, Jonathan has confused his sexual urges. But this does not explain what is meant by his mother's nakedness. We have seen previously how this 'nakedness' ('erwāh) can be used idiomatically with sexual connotations. Presumably Saul is denying responsibility for his son, shifting any blame for Jonathan's character on to his mother. The NIV makes a reasonable attempt at translation with “to your own shame and the shame of the mother who bore you”. Despite the sexual nature implied in the crudity of Saul's language, there is no reason to suppose Saul is ashamed of Jonathan's sexuality, but rather his loyalty to David at the cost of loyalty his own father.107
David's romantic life is complex – the Bible credits him with several marriages, contradicting the theory that he was homosexual. David is offered the opportunity to marry Saul's daughter Merab (probably an attempt to buy his loyalty) although David refuses on the grounds that he is not worthy to marry into the royal family. However, another of Saul's daughters, Michal, falls in love with David and Saul, sensing another opportunity to manipulate David, tells him he has a chance to be his son-in-law a second time (18:17-21). Some interpret the way Saul phrases this to mean that David would become his son-in-law twice, implying that he already was married to one of Saul's children – Jonathan.108 However, Saul is clearly referring to David's lost opportunity to marry Merab. David again refuses the match, claiming poverty, but eventually accedes after Saul agrees to lower the bride price – seventy Philistine foreskins (Saul's plan to have David killed). Despite this, David succedes in the quest and is married to Michal (18:22-27). David later goes on to also marry Abigail, who had impressed him with her good sense and beauty, and other women as well (I Samuel 25).
David was clearly attracted to women, as shown by his lust for Bathsheba (II Samuel 11), so at best all these marriages would suggest David was bisexual, not homosexual. Polygamy was common at the time, so David's other marriages would not rule out a sexual relationship with Jonathan. But even so, this argument is based primarily on conjecture rather than what is made clear in the text. Nevertheless, David's noble relationship with Jonathan stands apart from his sometimes sordid relationships with women (II Samuel 1:26).
To interpret the relationship between David and Jonathan as romantic or sexual, and their covenants as some kind of marriage, misses out on a much more profound (and plausible) story. Rather than being infatuated with David, Jonathan percieves him as the rightful king, annointed by God. He has seen God's power working through David right from his defeat of Goliath. David's faith and humility stand in stark contrast to the bitterness and worldliness of Saul, and Jonathan pledges him his loyalty. This is all the more poignant as it means Jonathan will relinquish his own claims to the throne. This is shown symbolically in their first covenant where Jonathan removes his robe and his armour – symbols of his position and authority – and gives them to David. Throughout David's conflict with Saul, Jonathan is a loyal friend to David, even standing up to his father at much personal cost (I Samuel 20:30). David's journey to some degree mirrors the journey of his descendent, Jesus Christ. Although recognised among the common people, his rightful position is rejected by the elite. Jonathan represents all those who recognise God's annointed and are faithful, regardless of the cost. Thus, the example of David and Jonathan's relationship is not a triumph of sexuality, but a triumph of spirituality.
Further to what we find in the Old Testament, the New Testament also has something to say concerning homosexuality. Not surprisingly, most of this is written by Paul. His letter to the Romans begins with a damning portrait of a godless, sinful world. The signs of God are everywhere, Paul says, but rather than worship him, mankind has foolishly gone its own way (1:18-23). Nevertheless, God has allowed this to happen, leaving the people to reap the consequences of their sins. Paul uses sexual immorality as an example of this:
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26-27)
He seems to be quite plainly condemning homosexual relations, yet some commentators have attempted to cast doubts about this. It has been suggested that Paul is not talking here about a moral issue, merely something that society disapproves or finds objectionable. These acts are described as 'degrading' passions – atimia, a word that Paul even uses in connection with himself (II Corinthians 6:8), leading some to conclude it refers to a merely trivial offense.109 Atimia means 'dishonourable' which perhaps is not as strong a word as 'sin'. Paul uses it to describe items used for 'ordinary' use, perhaps chamber pots or the like (Romans 9:21; II Timothy 2:20). Yet this by no means makes it a good thing, or something to be sought. We ought to consider why Paul considered himself atimia. It was not a result of seeking his own desires; he was not considered dishonourable by God, but by the world for his service to Christ. We should in no way condone what Paul here labels degrading.
Most debate focusses on what is meant when Paul describes 'natural' and 'unnatural' intercourse. Is he speaking of an immutable natural law, or perhaps an individual's own natural inclinations? Are homosexual relations unnatural for all people, or only for those who would identify as heterosexual? The Greek words Paul uses are phusikos (natural) and para phusikos (unnatural). Its noun form phusis (nature) carries the idea of a process of growing or producing, the result of which would be 'natural'.110 Paul illustrates this when he distinguishes between a plant grown 'naturally' and one that has been artificially grafted 'unnaturally' (Romans 11:21-24). This implies that the natural is something that is normal or fixed. But in other contexts phusikos refers to a more personal characteristic (e.g. Ephesians 2:3, “we were by nature children of wrath”).111 The nature Paul speaks of here is not fixed, but can – indeed has been changed. Thus phusikos seems just as vague in the Greek as 'nature' is in English, being somewhat dependent on its context. Paul was not the first to apply the concept of nature to the subject of homosexuality. The Greek philosophers debated whether homosexual relations were natural or unnatural, using these same words:
When male unite with female for procreation, the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature [phusis], but contrary to nature [para phusis] when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure. (Plato 'Laws' I 636c – c. 350 bc)112
The nature Plato is talking about here is not some individual characteristic. He is talking about males and females in general. Jewish writers Philo and Josephus also argue against homosexuality as being 'against nature'.113 Given this background, it is highly likely that Paul had a similar concept in mind. This idea of nature, or creation forming a moral precedent is also reflected in Jesus's teaching on divorce (Matthew 19:5). Moreover, at the time Paul was writing, there was no understanding of exclusive homosexuality as an intrinsic trait. Pederasty and male prostitution were indulged in by otherwise normal, married men. Exclusive homosexuality did not originate as an idea until the nineteenth century, so Paul cannot be applying it to this situation. The argument that these people were only transgressing their own personal natures makes no sense when we see how Paul emphasises the lust that was involved. It becomes apparent that rather than people violating their own inclinations, it is their attempts to gratify them that Paul believes is shameful.
Some pick up on this lustfulness to suggest that Paul is only talking about selfish acts of prostitution. After all, they argue, he is describing Godless people, idolaters (v. 25) who could have been involved in ritual prostitution – not committed God-fearing partners.114 But lustfulness here is just another of the symptoms, not the cause. This reinforces the concept we found in Leviticus: homosexuality was not forbidden to keep the Israelites away from idolatry, it was forbidden for in God's eyes they both are part of the same problem. It is also interesting to note that this is the only passage in the Bible that specifically mentions female homosexuality. This reference implies that Paul is not just talking about a specific form of homosexual relationship, such as prostitution or exploitative pederasty, rather he has in mind something broader.115
In the book of Romans, Paul is trying to show how all mankind can receive salvation through the righteousness that comes from God (1:17). As an introduction he paints this picture of the sinfulness of all mankind. No matter how good we think we are, we have all sinned for we have all gone against God's will. In this context, all sin is 'against nature' since it is against God and his intentions for mankind. It is nature that declares the presence of God (1:20), but this has been ignored. To fuss over linguistic details distracts from this important point. Paul cites homosexuality as an example of how obviously sin can be 'against nature', against the plain intent of creation. He says that people should know better; they should know that God is to be worshipped, but they worship themselves instead; they should know from the creation account116 that the proper partner for a man is a woman, yet they ignore this too. Homosexuality is a rejection of God's plainly revealed will and those who practice it are sinning against themselves as well as against God.
Paul has even more to say on the issue of homosexuality. In his first preserved letter to the Corinthian church, he rebukes them for many kinds of wickedness. They are behaving towards each other in a disgraceful fashion, and taking each other to court (I Corinthians 6:1-8), so Paul warns them plainly about the consequences of evil behaviour:
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (I Corinthians 6:9-10)
The object of this passage is quite clear: male prostitutes and sodomites (among others) will not inherit the kingdom. The question is, what is a sodomite and, for that matter, what is a male prostitute? As we noticed earlier, the word sodomite is not very precise and can mean several things – possibly, but not always, homosexuals. So what does it mean here?
The Greek word here referring to male prostitutes is malakos, which generally means 'soft' or even 'effeminate'. Jesus uses the word to contrast with the roughness of John the Baptist (Matthew 11:8; Luke 7:25). Being effeminate can conjure up for us common stereotypical images we have today of homosexuals. However, rather than being a blanket term for all homosexuals it typically referred to the passive partner in a homosexual act, often a male prostitute, or the young partner in a pederastic couple.117
The meaning of 'sodomite' is not quite as clear-cut. The Greek word is arsēnokoitēs, one that rarely occurs in Greek literature. This has made translation difficult, generating much confusion and scholarly debate over it's meaning. Many writers view it in context with malakos, to suggest it refers to the men who sleep with male prostitutes,118 or the older man in a pederastic couple.119 When viewed this way, it is possible to argue that Paul is talking about unequal, abusive relationships – not a committed, loving partnership. However this does not give us a complete picture. Arsēnokoitēs is a compound word combining arsēn (male) and koitē (bed).120 These words are those used in the Septuagint to translate Leviticus 18:22 when it talks of the 'lyings of a man'. It is possible that Paul is referring us back to those whose behaviour was forbidden under the old law. This would help explain why Paul uses arsēnokoitēs when there were other words more commonly used referring to homosexual practices. Given that the predominant forms of homosexuality at the time were pederasty and prostitution, it is possible that he was intending a broader definition, deliberately pointing back to the old law to say that any man lying with a man is guilty – not just with a boy or a slave.
This connection with the old law is more apparent in Paul's correspondence with Timothy:
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (I Timothy 1:8-11)121
Paul is warning Timothy about false teachers who depart from God's sound teaching. Sound teaching is found in the law which spoke against such things as he listed – including 'sodomites' (arsēnokoitēs).
As a last resort, some try to launch a personal attack on Paul himself in order to discredit him and his teaching. After all, they argue, did he not also tolerate slavery (Ephesians 6:5) and argue for the repression of women (I Corinthians 14:34-35)?122 Some even believe Paul may have been a frustrated homosexual himself, this being his “thorn in the flesh”.123 Such people try to paint these passages as hate-filled diatribes against misunderstood people, which can therefore be ignored.124 But as harsh and as 'unloving' as it may sound to single people out as Paul does, this is how God views sin – all sin. We need only look at some of the other sins listed to see how each one of us has fallen. Sin is a serious matter and those who continue in it will not inherit the kingdom; yet even while saying this, in the same breath Paul gives us a message of hope. Following the list in I Corinthians we read:
And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (I Corinthians 6:11)
To downplay the reality of sin diminishes the work Christ did to cleanse us from it. Dismissing Paul's warning here about sin is really the 'unloving' thing to do, as it takes people away from the truth we all need to hear. These are not the rantings of a bitter, homophobic old man. This is insight into the “gospel of the blessed God” (I Timothy 1:11), and “all scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (II Timothy 3:16). God does not wantonly exclude or condemn for the sake of it – God wants to heal and forgive. Rather than being something to be afraid of, these words from Paul can give hope to all those struggling with homosexuality.
As strange as this may seem to many, it has been claimed that Jesus himself had a homosexual relationship with his disciple John.125 This conjecture is largely based on John's description of himself in his Gospel as “the one whom Jesus loved”. The word used here is agapaō, a selfless, giving love with no sexual connotations. This is indeed a blasphemous theory that has the support of no reputable scholars, and deserves no further attention.
But what was Jesus's attitude towards homosexuality? There is an occasion where, according to some, Jesus seems to be accepting of a homosexual relationship. The Gospels tell of a Centurion's servant who Jesus heals on account of the Centurion's great faith. In Matthew's account (8:5-13), the Greek word for servant is pais which some say can refer to a slave used for sexual purposes ('pederasty' derives from this word).126 However, pais itself primarily means a child (possibly one in service). We see this in many New Testament passages, such as Luke 2:42 & Acts 3:13 (both referring to Jesus), and Luke 8:51,54 (referring to a girl). In fact the derivation of 'pederasty' comes from pais and eros, literally 'child-lover', suggesting that pais has no sexual overtones on its own. Moreover, Luke's similar account (7:1-10) refers to a doulos, a slave. This slave is “valued highly” or 'dear', but there is no reason to suppose that this was in any way erotic.
Some have seen Jesus's silence on the issue of homosexuality as implicit acceptance of it. He comments on many other issues, though never explicitly mentions same-sex relationships. While these relationships were common among the Romans, there is no evidence that they were prevalent among the Jews. We have already seen that they were condemned under Jewish law, so this would not have been a matter of contention between Jesus and the religious leaders.127 He openly challenged them on many of their errors on other issues such as divorce (Matthew 19:1-9) and legalism (Matthew 23:1-36). If Jesus had disagreed with them over homosexuality we would expect him to have confronted them, but he did not. The only way in which Jesus's teaching on sexuality differs from those before him is in his comments on lust as the basis of adultery (Matthew 5:28). Clearly Jesus agreed with the traditional Jewish perspective prohibiting homosexual relations.
When we stand back from all the debates over Hebrew words and hermeneutics, it becomes apparent that not only do the Scriptures contain prohibitions of same-sex relationship, it is strikingly devoid of any theological basis for them. In contrast to this is the rich symbolism that is applied to marriage between a man and a woman. This starts right at the beginning when God creates humankind “male and female”, in some way reflecting his image (Genesis 1:27). Adam is created first, but needs a helper, thus God intriguingly has Adam inspect all the animals in search of a partner. None are found suitable until God creates Eve, whereupon seeing her Adam bursts into song:
This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,
for out of Man this one was taken. (Genesis 2:23)
This is the reason given for marriage (v. 24), the uniting of male and female as one flesh. Some try to explain this away as an allegory which suited the time it was written, claiming it would be natural to explain the populating of the earth with a relationship that could reproduce.128 Yet thousands of years later Jesus refers back to this very text when he is questioned about marriage (Matthew 19:5), suggesting that there are fundamental truths to be found here. Some mistakenly put forward the argument that homosexual relationships are unnatural because they cannot produce children, but this would imply that infertile couples and elderly couples were somehow abnormal and inadequate. God commands humankind to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) but there is no mention of producing offspring as the purpose of marriage. Physical union and the sexual complementarity of male and female reflect and express the spiritual nature of the union, but are not the ultimate aim.
Paul expands on the theology of marriage in his letter to the Ephesians, likening the relationship between a husband and wife to the relationship between Christ and His church (Ephesians 5:22-32). In this way a marriage can provide us with an image of the divine. Paul acknowledges that this is a mystery (v. 32) but its implications are very real. The combination of male and female is central here with their differing roles and complementarity, and there appears to be no room for a same-gender dynamic within this framework.129 Marriage between two partners of the same gender just does not seem to be contemplated by Paul – a grave omission if homosexuality is indeed a part of God's design.
There is more to sexuality than self-fulfilment; it is not an inalienable right given for us to use however we see fit (I Thessalonians 4:3-5). The Song of Solomon, in all its luscious imagery of the ecstacy of love, repeatedly gives the sobering plea “do not stir up or awaken love until it is ready!” (Song of Solomon 2:7; 3:5; 8:4). Yet there is joy to be found in this submission. Submission to God is not self-denying, but self-affirming – affirming our true nature given by God. We must seek to glorify God through our relationships and sexuality, not ourselves. We do this by following the pattern he has created for us, not by following the 'wisdom' of this world.
Some believe that sexuality is unimportant to God – that what matters is our love for each other.130 Certainly love is the greatest command (I John 4:7). But how can we love each other if we do not first love God and obey his commands (I John 5:2-3)? Paul teaches us that there is something about the sexual act which reaches beyond our physical bodies and touches the soul (I Corinthians 6:16). For this reason we are to keep ourselves pure and glorify God with our bodies. We cannot ignore God's will on issues of sexuality or else we will be just like those Paul described in Romans 1 who have fallen in love with the creation, rather than the creator.
Many believe that the Bible has nothing to say about homosexuality “as we know it today”.131 They argue that the writers of the Bible had in mind a kind of homosexuality that was abusive, at best unequal, but not the comitted, monogamous relationships that we see now. We have already seen this come up at various times in relation to specific passages. What this argument is really about is the authority and inerrancy of scripture. It suggests that those writing scripture did not fully understand or had not been revealed God's plan for homosexuality, but today we are enlightened, we know better. This is absurd as it implies that God's revelation is incomplete – or worse, inaccurate and fallible. If we believe that God's word is truly inspired and meaningful for all mankind (II Timothy 3:16), then we must follow it in humble submission.
If we are to engage in dialogue with others about this issue, we need to gain a better understanging of the nature of same-sex attraction. Modern science makes many claims about homosexuality, so what impact do these have on our Christian perspective? Changes in attitudes through history and developing academic thinking have caused our understanding to evolve. A term now often used is sexual 'orientation' which categorises the direction in which an individual finds sexual fulfillment – whether with the same or opposite gender, or even both – yet we have seen that this understanding is a recent development. When considering this question of what homosexuality means, it is important to distinguish homosexual desires from the sexual acts that can result from them. A desire may be fleeting, or it may be strong enough to govern a person's entire sexual identity. It is not only those with a homosexual orientation who engage in homosexual behaviour. Some who readily identify as heterosexual occasionally participate in homosexual intercourse, possibly for experimentation or variety. Some individuals placed in a same-sex environment, such as a prison, turn to each other as a sexual outlet, all the while maintaining a strongly heterosexual identity. On the other hand, some with a homosexual identity practice celibacy and so do not participate in any homosexual acts.
For this reason it can be difficult to gauge the extent of homosexual activity and identity in our society. Estimates typically vary from 1-10% (some even higher). A large-scale study in Australia found that 97.4% of males and 97.7% of females identified as heterosexual. A small minority identified as homosexual (male 1.6%, female 0.8%) or bisexual (male 0.9%, female 1.4%). Despite these low percentages, 8.6% of males had experienced homosexual attraction, along with 15.1% of females.132 This illustrates that homosexual attraction, behaviour and identity are not synonymous concepts, and their origins and causation are not easy to explain.
The question of what causes homosexuality in a person is hotly contested. Many homosexuals claim to be born that way, yet some resolutely claim that it is their own choice of lifestyle.133 A large amount of literature has been produced seeking to understand the causes of this phenomenon, whether it be driven by psychological mechanisms or inherent biological factors.
Psychological constructions of homosexuality have fallen out of favour in recent decades, since the American Psychiatric Association (APA) had it removed from its diagnostic manual in 1973.134 Despite the apparent objectivity of such a decision by a respected professional body, this came about largely due to political pressure on the APA board from the National Gay Task Force, despite grave reservations on the part of those members who specialised in dealing with homosexuals.135 Prior to this decision, extensive research was carried out on psychological factors with links to homosexuality.
The classic understanding was that homosexuality in males is caused by a hostile or distant father. A child might seek to compensate for their feelings of loss or rejection by seeking love and affection from other males, which when sexualised would turn into a homoerotic desire. This view was demonstrated by a large study carried out by Irving Bieber in 1962. Bieber interviewed 1,000 male homosexuals and 50 sets of parents, finding that 90% of cases followed this pattern.136 A similar pattern arises among female homosexuals, with many having mothers who were distant or emotionally unavailable.137 This behaviour on the part of the parents need not be deliberate or malicious, but some kind of deficit is frequently found in the relationship between a homosexual child and their parent of the same gender.138
It is also thought that homosexuality may spring from gender confusion. All humans are unique and some men behave in ways that might be considered more masculine than others, and some women might appear more feminine than others. It is not unusual for adults or children to exhibit some traits of the opposite gender, however in extreme cases, this is considered a Gender Identity Disorder, which has been identified as a 'risk' factor for developing same-sex attractions. If a child does not positively identify with their own gender they have been shown to be more likely to experience same-sex attractions.139
If these psychological constructions have any merit there would be potential for them to be reversed through counselling or therapy, as with other psychological or emotional issues. Childhood traumas can be worked through, confusions can be sorted out. These reparative therapies are the cause of great controversy amongst psychologists, especially in relation to so-called 'ex-gay' ministries. Often run by church organisations, these programmes seek to counsel individuals experiencing same-sex desires with the goal of reversing their sexual orientation. Many are opposed to this practice, seeing homosexual orientation as something which cannot and should not be changed. They are quick to draw attention to high-profile patients who 'relapse', and point out poor success rates for such therapy,140 yet these statistics are not significantly different to those found in similar programmes dealing with alcoholism, phobias or other psychological and behavioural problems.141 Opponents further undermine reparative therapy by citing a lack of peer-reviewed research on the results of the therapy. However, this is part of a self-defeating cycle where academics are discredited for a lack of published articles, when articles they attempt to publish are often rejected on the basis that their authors have no standing.142 While working for the Stanford Law and Policy Review, Ty Clevenger was assigned to solicit articles for an issue on homosexual rights that were written from a conservative viewpoint. Some time later, he was informed by the editorial board that only the pro-homosexual articles would be published.143 He has described a systematic bias within the academic community whereby articles are routinely assigned to reviewers who would be either favourable or hostile, depending on the desired outcome.144 By these means an unspoken orthodoxy has developed which will suffer no challenge. This kind of intellectual bullying has no place in the supposedly open-minded and objective field of science.
Robert Epstein, former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today experienced the wrath of the homosexual rights lobby when his journal published an advertisement for a book on how to prevent homosexuality in children. He received all manner of abusive messages and telephone calls, outraged at his insensitivity to the cause. Although being pro-homosexual himself, he has been more open-minded towards the potential benefits of reparative therapies. He points out that even the American Psychological Association, while cautioning the use of such therapy, acknowledge the need for professionals to leave room for patients' individual consciences and to “respect the rights of others to hold values, attitudes and opinions that differ from [their] own”.145 Despite strong opposition, some psychiatrists are becoming persuaded of the potential merits of reparative therapies. Dr Robert Spitzer, one of the leading forces behind declassifying homosexuality in 1973, has become “convinced that many people have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual.”146 While he gives the caveat that not all can or should change their orientation, he insists that some change is possible if an individual is willing and committed to that goal.147
Nevertheless, it seems that the idea that homosexuality can be changed (indeed is something someone may even wish to change) is abhorrent to many. They find it offensive to suggest that homosexuality is caused by an aberration in psychological development. We cannot make inferences about a person's background and character from their homosexuality, but as we have seen, there are many indications linking it with various psychological issues. Moreover, the fact that some have been able to change suggests that homosexuality is not a fixed trait, no matter how deeply-seated one's urges might be.
The alternative explanation for the origins of homosexuality is a biological one. This approach has gained widespread support in recent years, particularly with recent scientific advances and interest in genetic research. Scientists have been eager to demonstrate a genetic or biological basis for homosexuality as this would show that it is an immutable trait, a normal variation. To this end, the media have reported several breakthroughs claiming to have found the link.
One such study was conducted by Dr Simon LeVay in 1991. By dissecting the brains of a small sample of homosexual and heterosexual men, he found that a section of the hypothalmus was smaller in homosexuals than in heterosexuals (cell group INAH-3).148 The hypothalmus regulates hormones that play a role in sexual function. This study was widely hailed at the time as a breakthrough proving the biological nature of homosexuality. However, even Dr LeVay himself admitted that he did not find proof of a genetic link. Moreover, some experts have cast doubts on his findings: all of the men in the study who were classified as homosexual (this in itself a subjective guess on the part of the researchers) had died of AIDS, which is known to reduce levels of testosterone – which in turn can reduce the size of the hypothalmus. There is no way of knowing whether the small hypothalmus caused the homosexuality, or if the hypothalmus was shrunk by the AIDS.149
Another celebrated study was led by Dr Dean Hamer in 1993. He found that out of brothers who were both homosexual, 83% shared a particular gene,150 dubbed the 'gay gene' by the media. These results, though, are not as convincing as they appear: no attempt was made to compare this gene's occurrence in brothers who were not homosexual, and some have questioned Dr Hamer's use of statistics to increase the significance of his findings. Furthermore, these results have not been successfully reproduced: a follow-up study on homosexual women did not find a similar correlation.151 We are far from understanding how the human genome in all its complexity works to influence our make-up. Consequently it is at best premature to make this kind of assertion about the influence of individual genes.
Further evidence for a genetic background for homosexuality is sought in the study of twins. A large survey of male and female identical twins in Australia found that 30% of individual twins who were homosexual had a twin who was also homosexual.152 If homosexuality is genetic we would expect it to be shared much more between pairs of twins. Since identical twins have identical genes the figure should approach 100%. It is possible for factors in utero to create hormonal and biological differences between even identical twins,153 yet only a 30% correlation is far from convincing evidence for a genetic basis.
Despite all the media attention given to supposed breakthroughs claiming to have discovered a natural biological cause to homosexuality, this has not been proven. A review of all the current research by the Council for Responsible Genetics found that "there is no conclusive link found between sexual orientation and genes”.154 Current research is speculative at best, and is far from explaining a comprehensive and conclusive biological basis for homosexuality.
Homosexual behaviour is not limited to humans, and has been documented in many species throughout the animal kingdom. In 2004 keepers at New York City’s Central Park Zoo noticed that Roy and Silo, a pair of male chinstrap penguins, were displaying intimate behaviour together – normally only seen between males and females. The pair even began attempting to ‘incubate’ a stone in place of an egg. Zoo staff replaced the stone with a spare egg that then hatched into a healthy chick, Tango, who they raised together.155 This drew significant media attention, although Silo later took up with Scrappy, a female, leaving Roy confused and staring at the wall.156 Other species also have been known to engage in same-sex behaviour, for example young dolphins often form temporary homosexual bonds, along with some ostriches and flamingos.157
These examples have provided proof for many that homosexuality is a normal, natural phenomenon. However, various animal species also eat their young and exhibit other behaviours we would find abhorrent in humans.158 It would be a mistake to base our behaviour and morality on what we see in the animal kingdom. This would completely nullify the idea of humans as created in the image of God, and therefore moral beings, reducing ourselves to purely 'animal' instincts. Have we really lost our humanity to the extent that we look to beasts for our example? As Christians we must look to a higher standard.
In all likelihood, homosexuality is caused by a combination of all these factors, our complex bodies and circumstances interacting in myriad ways. But it should be stressed that none of these factors are absolute. Having a distant father does not mean a boy will definitely become homosexual, and neither will a girl who does not like to wear dresses. We are never a slave to our circumstances – we always have a choice over how we deal with them. It is how we respond to the various circumstances in which we find ourselves that makes us who we are, not those circumstances themselves. Otherwise we become merely robots, slaves to the forces around us.
The debate over the nature and causes of homosexuality is such a crucial one as it goes to the heart of the legitimacy of homosexual identities and lifestyles. By assigning their behaviour to factors outside their control, homosexuals can avoid any responsibiulity or accountability for their actions. “God made me this way” is the common cry, but even from a scientific point of view this assertion is far from being established. Moreover, from a biblical perspective it is irrational to suppose that God would create people in a way that was contrary to his design. God has surely made us who we are (Psalm 139:13-14) but this creation has been corrupted and sullied by sin. We must not confuse what feels natural with what is right: “The heart is devious above all else; it is perverse – who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9). Our sinful nature is at war within us, and does not submit quietly. Selfishness, pride, deceitfulness and other works of the flesh must, and can, be conquered. The Spirit within us convicts us of sin (John 16:8) and aids us in putting to death the old self. Only then can we be transformed into a new creation in Christ, and be as God intended for us to be.
Nevertheless, some homosexual campaigners are capable of alarming arrogance on this score. Rev. Mel White, leader of the ‘Soulforce’ campaign159 has said “right now we must ignore the ex-gay movement and say ‘I’ve settled that, don’t even bring it up to me. If I’m wrong God’s grace covers me, but I’m not going to spend any more time worrying about it”.160 This lazy, sloppy attitude is unworthy of a Christian. Paul exhorts us to “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12). We should never give up questioning our own natures and motivations, instead taking “every thought captive to obey Christ” (II Corinthians 10:5). This is our call whether we struggle with homosexual desires or any other sinful temptation.
The movement for homosexual rights has well and truly become a part of our society. Everywhere we look – in the movies, on television and in the news – we can see homosexual lifestyles being promoted, both implicitly and explicitly. Many now regard same-sex relationships as a perfectly valid alternative161 which must be accepted and tolerated. In this environment it is increasingly difficult to stand up for traditional values without receiving ridicule or abuse.
Many countries have passed legislation banning discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. This has the potential to make life difficult for religious groups whose conscience will not allow them to condone homosexuality. A controversy was recently caused in the United Kingdom when laws were passed banning discrimination based on sexuality. The government agonised over whether to give in to church groups fighting for exemption. Eventually it was decided that no concessions would be made and now, for example, Catholic adoption agencies may have to close or face possible litigation if homosexual couples are refused service.162 The same could apply to public use of church halls, staff in faith-based schools and many other possible scenarios. Currently in Australia an allowance is made for religious bodies to act according to their beliefs,163 although there is considerable support for removing these provisions.164 In the push to grant homosexuals rights, religious groups (long protected under the law)165 are now often the ones being discriminated against. This is symptomatic of the low opinion many people have of religion. We ought, when necessary, to humbly stand up for our freedoms and the ability to maintain our Christian witness to society.
Now that homosexual activity has been legalised in most western countries, the last frontier in the push for equality is the right to marry. This is the last basic 'freedom' that is denied to homosexual couples. Those in favour of homosexual marriage are essentially seeking to redress percieved discrimination by achieving the official and social recognition that comes with the institution of marriage, along with its subsequent legal and financial benefits.166 These benefits include family tax breaks, sick/bereaved spouse leave, next-of-kin rights and child adoption rights. Those against (often, though not always, arguing from a religious standpoint) see marriage as being between a man and a woman, a fundamental building block of society that should not be altered.
The desire for marriage is not felt universally among the homosexual community. Many see no reason for adopting what they see as an old-fashioned institution, representing an establishment that has for so long been hostile to them.167 Others point to the poor state of many heterosexual marriages and want no part of it.168 Nevertheless, most homosexual couples desire the benefits that come with marriage. To this end some jurisdictions have introduced 'civil partnerships' that grant rights similar to marriage without being called marriage or containing its religious overtones. This has been done in an attempt to find a middle ground on the issue, to grant homosexuals the rights they seek without offending conservatives. But simply changing the name has not altered any of the underlying issues that are at stake here.
The first issue is a conceptual one: marriage has for thousands of years been a relationship between a man and a woman, a framework in which children may be born and raised. This basic foundation has been constant, although precise arrangements and expectations have varied. Those on both sides of this debate would have to recognise that to allow marriage between partners of the same gender would radically alter this definition. Yet a portion of homosexual activists are not interested in preserving this traditional notion of family, but rather destroying it. Their militancy can be quite frightening. One such activist, Paula Ettelbrick, has said that “being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society”.169 Many in favour of same-sex marriages point to recent changes in general attitudes on families such as the increase in divorce, single parenting and step-parenting – illustrating how diverse family arrangements can be. By this reasoning, same-sex marriage is just one more change in what is really a continuously evolving institution.170 Yet we must ask ourselves, have these changes been beneficial? I would argue that they have not: these changes have eroded the basic intent of marriage, the lifelong commitment of a man and a woman, and the right of children to be raised in a stable environment by their natural parents. Divorce is a case in point. The very notion undermines marriage, but God himself did not allow it without much reservation and regret, “It was because you were so hard-hearted […] but from the beginning it was not so.” (Matthew 19:8) Despite the ease of divorce today, it still causes pain and suffering in many families – even more so now due to its frequency.171 This could hardly be considered a positive development. We should not contemplate changing the nature of marriage without carefully considering its implications on the institution of marriage and society at large.
It has been argued that marriage would benefit homosexuals by encouraging them to form more stable, long-term relationships.172 There is little evidence to support this, however. One study compared the attitudes of couples registering civil partnerships in the US state of Vermont. 79% of heterosexual married men in the survey believed monogamy was important, a statistic concerning in itself. Yet compare this to only 50% of homosexual men undertaking civil unions and 34% of homosexual men with no formal union.173 Monogamy does not seem to be a priority for many homosexual couples, even when entering into a formalised relationship. It is difficult to see how granting homosexuals marriage will improve this attitude. Marriage will not encourage monogamy unless a couple is already committed to it. To enter into a marriage without this commitment would only seem to further tarnish the institution, rather than enhance it.
The second issue regarding same-sex marriage deals with practical considerations such as the effects of homosexual parents on children raised by them. A few decades ago this would have been unthinkable, however rapid advancements in reproductive technology have allowed the possibility for children to be conceived in all manner of ways without a traditional father or mother. Methods include IVF using donor sperm, surrogacy and also adoption. Some male and female homosexual couples have formed reciprocal agreements to supply each other with sperm and eggs.174 Having children in these ways is an increasing trend within the homosexual community. Surveys in the United States show approximately 10% of male couples have children, along with 15-20% of female couples.175 Yet there is a concern that these same-sex parents cannot provide an environment in which it is suitable for a child to grow. All children are brought into the world by both a father and a mother (whether or not these parents stay together does not change this fact) and both these biological parents have traditionally been the primary source of care and instruction for a child.176 This is a seemingly natural arrangement. But allowing same-sex couples to marry and raise children completely alters this dynamic: rather than receiving a balance of influences from both a male and a female parent, children's experiences would be skewed towards one gender. What effect will this have on a child's development?
Research into the effect of same-sex parenting on children is a relatively new field. Many children from these relationships are not yet grown up enough for a full assessment to be made, leading some studies to instead look at children born into heterosexual families that have split up due to one parent's homosexuality. There is nevertheless plenty of activity in the field, with a large majority of studies concluding that children with homosexual parents suffer no disadvantage. Most argue that the crucial factors in a child’s upbringing are a loving, stable environment – which can be created by a homosexual couple as readily as a heterosexual one. A similar situation is found in single-parent families as they also lack the same balance of gender role-models. Many studies have shown that children in single-parent households often score lower on many indicators such as mental health, education and behavioural problems.177 It is difficult, though, to extrapolate from this research as it is unclear to what extent these adverse effects can be attributed to the missing parent or to associated issues, such as the trauma of divorce or poverty.
Despite what many would have us believe, the research has been far from conclusive. According to a detailed research review by Stacey & Biblarz in the American Sociological Review, researchers often ignore statistical anomalies in their work, glossing over them to conclude that no 'significant' differences exist. This occurs most significantly in the area of children's sexual identity. Children of homosexual parents tend to follow traditional gender roles less closely – forms of play, dress, career goals etc. Indeed, lesbian mothers are typically indifferent to such matters in their children. Their openness to their children forming homosexual relationships (64%) is much greater than heterosexual parents (17%). Also, girls raised by lesbians tend to be more promiscuous than those raised by heterosexuals, while boys raised by lesbians are slightly more chaste. These all depart significantly from the norm.178 Many would argue that issues such as these are minor and irrelevant, but from a Christian perspective they show a concerning trend away from biblical norms.
Another study, often overlooked, showed that children of same sex parents underperformed at school in almost every measure when compared to children raised by married parents.179 They performed better at social studies, but worse in mathematics and languages. Parents were less involved in school life and homework and had lower expectations for their children’s futures. It also found that children of homosexuals were more confused sexually and tended to not mix well with other children.180 There is also evidence suggesting that child sexual abuse is much more common in homosexual households (0.6% among heterosexuals compared to 27% of homosexual households).181
It is disturbing that findings such as these are regularly ignored by professional researchers. But yet again it seems that there now exists a pro-homosexual orthodoxy which brooks no opposition. Intent on pushing their agenda, many campaigners are blind to any evidence that does not support their pre-determined conclusions. A balanced view of the available research should at least give us moment to pause: it seems only logical to assume that children will be affected by their parents' lifestyles. Many homosexuals would argue that the influence of their sexuality is immaterial, that there is nothing wrong with their child being more likely to become homosexual. The fact still remains that the sexual behaviour of parents does matter.182
Regardless of these disadvantages, it is still possible for a child raised by same-sex parents to be considered ‘well-adjusted’, just like those raised by single or divorced parents. These statistics show trends and are not an absolute scenario. But the positive outcomes speak more to the resilience of children than the value of any particular parenting situation. Even though a child can recover from physical injuries, nobody would condone wilfully inflicting such trauma on them. We should not treat a child’s spirit in the same way. Accidents do happen – parents die, they may divorce – but none of these things should be done wilfully. If we truly love our children, we will never opt for a second-best solution.
We face many challenges as we try to live and promote a righteous life in this fallen world. Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years, yet with our social climate of tolerance it is becoming more prominent and widespread. This is having a subtle but significant impact on many facets of our society.
But as distressing as it is to see many in the world so openly engaging in sin, it is not our place to judge them – that is left to God. Otherwise we would have to withdraw ourselves completely from the world. All we can hope to do is to be an example through the lives that we lead. We are to shine like lights that cannot help but reveal the darkness around us (Ephesians 5:8-14). In this way we will then be able to give an answer to those who notice the difference (I Peter 3:15-16). This means being visible, being active in our communities and speaking out humbly when we have opportunity. We will likely be ridiculed and rebuffed, but such was the experience of Christ himself, whose message often fell on hostile ears. Yet this will be to no avail unless we maintain a consistent witness to God’s truth through our own lives. When our words do not match our actions it becomes all too easy for the world to poke holes in our message and label us hypocrites. Many past failings of the church have been used against us to undermine our arguments – we saw this in relation to homosexual marriage. Unless we can show the world the joy of living according to God’s will, they will have no desire to follow.
However when it comes to our brothers and sisters in the church, we cannot turn a blind eye:
For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. “Drive out the wicked person among you”. (I Corinthians 5:12-13)
Paul says that we are only in a position to make judgements about those in the church – we are all committed to God's same standard, and have the responsibility to hold each other accountable (Colossians 3:16). The scriptures teach that homosexuality is a sin, and wilful, persistent sin must be dealt with (Matthew 18:15-18).
This is not a popular position to take – church discipline is often seen as harsh or intrusive. Those in the church who support homosexuality frequently point to Jesus's call for his disciples to love one another (Matthew 19:19). At the heart of his mission, they say, was love, tolerance and forgiveness, therefore we should show this same attitude towards homosexuals.183 However the gospels do not record Jesus saying anything about tolerance. He forgave a woman caught in adultery, yet he made it clear that she was to leave her life of sin, not remain in it (John 8:3-11). Love means life, and so when we love another person we must seek life for them: “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly” (John 10:10). True love then will put spiritual life above any worldly considerations and, no matter how unpopular or unpleasant the task, share Christ's message of repentance. Repentance is always the key when dealing with sin, and homosexuality is no exception. We must distinguish between those who blatantly flaunt their homosexual lifestyle in the face of God’s will, and those who genuinely struggle with their same-sex attractions.
For many this struggle is real – at the beginning we saw the tragic story of Stuart Matis. But this is a struggle that can be won. God has the power to heal all those who would come to him. It is our task as his people on earth to extend God's love to all those who are hurting, to help them through their pain, to be a listening ear. “Love, both in prayer and in relationships is the basic therapy. […] Love is the basic problem, the great need, and the only true solution”.184
We must always keep in mind that despite what our personal feelings may be, scripture makes no suggestion that homosexuality is worse than any other sin. All sin is rebellion against God. For this reason it would be wrong to single out homosexuals as deserving God's wrath any more than ourselves for our own sinfulness. Nor should we allow ourselves to be condescending or insensitive. Instead, we can show respect by refusing to participate in coarse joking (Ephesians 5:4). Although their lifestyle has become more accepted, 'gay' jokes are still no less common, and still potentially hurtful. We often casually blurt out, calling things 'gay' – when really other words will suffice.185 Avoiding this kind of language is a subtle way in which we can foster an atmosphere of respect for all of God's people.
At the end of the day, these issues require us to think carefully and look deeply into our hearts. If a homosexual person sat next to us on the bus or walked into our church, how would we treat them? If somebody like Stuart Matis turned to us for advice, how would we respond? Would we turn him away with our self-righteousness, or would we leave him to blindly carry on living a life of sin? But such hypothetical questions can be difficult to answer honestly. The messiness of reality always throws us off our guard. We need to simply be transforming our own lives, to develop hearts that respond in the manner of God's. As faithful disciples we must look to Christ, whose ministry of reconciliation led him along a lonely path to the cross.
Story taken from M Miller, 'To be Gay – and Mormon', Newsweek, 8 May 2000, pp. 38-39.
J Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1980, p. 92.
W Holland, 'Mwah... is this the first recorded gay kiss?' The Sunday Times, 1 January 2006.
L Compton, Homosexuality and Civilisation, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA & London, 2003, p. 214.
ibid., p. 218.
ibid., p. 215.
ibid., p. 221.
ibid., p. 213. Homosexuality was seen as a “mouldering lifestyle of capitalism”.
ibid., p. 415.
ibid., p. 416.
ibid., p. 421.
ibid., p. 411.
ibid., p. 425. Ironically, Kabuki was originally performed by women whose often suggestive performances and prostitution led to female actors being banned, their places taken over by men.
ibid., p. 443.
ibid., pp. 6-7. A famous example is the sacred band of Thebes, a force of 300 consisting entirely of male couples (Plutarch 'Pelopidas' 18).
KJ Dover, Greek Homosexuality, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1989, p. 15.
VL Bullough, Homosexuality: a History, New American Library, New York, 1979, p. 58.
R Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1983, p. 35.
ibid., p. 27.
KJ Dover, op. cit., p. 1.
J Boswell, op. cit., p. 126.
R Scroggs, op. cit, p. 47.
Plto, Plato in Twelve Volumes, vol. 9, trans. HN Fowler, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1925.
L Compton, op. cit., p. 536.
E Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, DA Saunders (ed.), Penguin Books, London, 1984, p. 104, footnote 4.
This will be examined more closely in discussions on Old Testament texts, see below, p. 18.
This belief was based on a (flawed) reading of the story of Onan in Genesis 38:1-10.
Philo Special Laws III 37-42; Josephus Against Apion II 273-5. R Scroggs, op. cit., p. 89, 95.
CC Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1953, p. 172.
ibid., p. 259. Justin's Apology was adressed to the Roman Emperor.
J Boswell, op. cit., p. 91, 128.
Quoted in J Boswell, op. cit., pp. 132-3. This was not the first time the church had become overrun by immorality. Chrysostom's denouncement carries echoes of Paul's rebuke of the church at Corinth (I Corinthians 5:1-13).
J Boswell, op. cit., p. 135.
VL Bullough, op. cit., pp. 25-6.
DS Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, Longmans, Green, London, 1955, p. 91.
VL Bullough, op. cit., pp. 31-2.
DS Bailey, op. cit., pp. 105-8.
Clerics found guilty were to be expelled from office; laymen were to be excommunicated. NP Tanner (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed and Ward, London, 1990.
T Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Benzinger Brothers, New York, 1948.
J Boswell, op. cit., p. 269.
Edward was supposedly murdered with a red-hot poker inserted into his rectum. These claims are based largely on hearsay several years after the event, and are doubted by many historians. Nevertheless, these rumours still reflect contemporary attitudes towards his alleged conduct.
Dr Boswell was a professor of History at Yale University. He was a prastising Catholic and also a homosexual, dying of AIDS-related illnesses in 1994.
J Boswell, op. cit., p. 164.
ibid., p. 7.
J Boswell, A Marriage of Likeness: Same-Sex Unions In Pre-Modern Europe, Vintage Books/Random House, New York, 1994, p. 182.
ibid., pp. 147-9.
ibid., p. 149.
R Darling Young, 'Gay Marriage: Reimagining Church History', First Things, no. 47, November 1994 pp. 43-48,
BD Shaw, 'A Groom of One's Own', The New Republic, 18 July 1994, pp. 33-41.
This included various sexual practices considered deviant, including sodomy (anal intercourse).
VL Bullough, op. cit., p. 145.
M Rocke, Forbidden Friendships: Homosexuality and Male Culture in Renaissance Florence, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996, p. 139. See also discussion on David and Jonathan, below, p. 31.
Quoted in VL Bullough, op. cit., p. 27.
ibid., p. 144. Interestingly, some modern scholars have blamed the KJV for mistranslating words relating to homosexuality and thus paving the way for centuries of anti-homosexual theology.
ibid., p. 35.
ibid., p. 40.
M Hyde, The Trials of Oscar Wilde, Dover Publications, New York, 1962, p. 236.
VL Bullough, op. cit., pp. 66-8.
This saw the introduction of the pink triangle as a symbol for homosexuality, used to brand homosexual prisoners.
VL Bullough, op. cit., p. 73.
ibid., p. 75.
ibid., p. 63.
ibid., p. 151.
ibid., pp. 29-30.
This was in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report published by the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention. DA Feldman & J Wang Miller, The Aids Crisis: A Documentary History, Greenwood Press, Westport, 1998, p. 13.
ibid., p. 14.
MD Grmek, History of AIDS: Emergence and Origin of a Modern Pandemic, trans. RC Maulitz & J Duffin, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1993, p. 32.
Current issues will be dealt with later – see 'Homosexuality in Society', below, p. 53.
J Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1980, p. 93.
DS Bailey, op. cit., p. 157.
This is again highlighted in Chapter 18 where Abraham bargains with God over the fate of the cities, with God agreeing to save them if just ten righteous can be found.
DS Bailey, op. cit., p. 4.
ibid., p. 2.
ibid., p. 5.
J Boswell, op. cit., p. 94, footnote 4. Ironically, a few pages later Dr Boswell criticises the Septuagint for being imprecise and containing “mistanslations” p. 99.
This may simply mean he refused to be near her, though this is unlikely. The verse states that she spoke to him every day; to completely avoid her would have been virtually impossible.
JB De Young, Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in the Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, 2000, pp. 119-20.
Every occurrence of suggenōmetha in the Septuagint is sexual in nature. ibid., pp. 120-21.
J Boswell, op. cit., p. 94.
This passage will be discussed in further detail, see below, p. 25.
Jubilees 7:21-22; see also Genesis 6:4. DA Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, Alamo Square Press, New Mexico, 2000, p. 118.
W Wink, 'Homosexuality and the Bible' in W Wink (ed.) Homosexuality and Christian Faith: Questions of Conscience for the Churches, Fortress, Minneapolis, p. 34.
Origen 'Homilia V in Genesium'; Ambrose 'De Abrahamo' 1.6.52. J Boswell, op. cit., p. 98.
Josephus 'Antiquities of the Jews' I 200-01. R Scroggs, op. cit., p. 91.
Philo. 'On Abraham' 133-141. ibid.
R Williams, Just As I Am, Crown, New York, 1992, cited in FL Smith, Sodom's Second Coming, Harvest House, Eugene, 1993, p. 125.
Incidentally, Peter describes the Sodomites' behaviour as 'licentiousness', or sexual promiscuity.
The Septuagint translation faithfully carries this meaning through with koitē, being the root word for the English 'coitus'.
R Scroggs, op. cit., p. 88.
J Boswell, op. cit., p. 100.
ibid.
WE Vine, MF Unger & W White, Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, 1996, p. 1.
RJ Neuhaus, 'In the case of John Boswell', First Things, 41, March 1994, pp. 56-72.
Lest we single out homosexuality here, we should note that later all the sexual perversions are described as tô'ēbāh (18:26-27).
M White, What the Bible Says – and Doesn't say about Homosexuality, Soul Force, n/d.
M White, loc. cit.
For a concise summary of the fulfilment of OT laws see New Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, DRW Wood & others (eds), Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, 2004, p. 677. Purity is found through Jesus blood (Heb. 10:19-22) and living sanctified lives (II Cor. 7:1); Circumcision is now of the heart (Rom. 2:29); Sabbath rest is attained through belief in Christ (Heb. 4:1-11).
TM Horner, op. cit., p. 40.
ibid., p. 27.
This phrase “loved him as his own soul” opposes a sexual interpretation as it makes no sense for Jonathan to have sexual desires for himself.
WE Vine, MF Unger & W White, op. cit., p. 141.
TM Horner, op. cit., p. 28.
ibid.
If they were indeed married, there seems little need to be constantly renewing their vows.
TM Horner, op. cit., p. 31.
This translation gives a relatively polite rendering to the extremely vulgar Hebrew used by Saul. The insult against Jonathan's mother is equivalent to calling him a bastard, or worse.
This interpretation is further supported by Saul's comments in I Samuel 22:8 where he bemoans that nobody warned him about Jonathan's pact with David to, as he sees it, undermine his rule.
The KJV uses the confusing expression “son-in-law in the one of the twane”.
DA Helminiak, op. cit., p. 90.
New Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, DRW Wood & others (eds), Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, 2004, p. 807.
J Boswell, op. cit., p. 110.
Plato, Plato in Twelve Volumes, trans. HN Fowler, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1925. See also Plutarch 'Erõtikos' 751c; Athenaeus 'Deipnosophists' XIII 565c), ibid., p. 60.
Philo 'Special Laws' III 37-42; Josephus 'Against Apion' II 273-5. R Scroggs, op. cit., pp. 89, 95.
TM Horner, Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1978, p. 109.
RAJ Gagnon, 'The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Key Issues' in DO Via & RAJ Gagnon (eds), Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 2003, p. 80.
See discussion on the creation account below, p. 43.
R Scroggs, op. cit., p. 108.
TM Horner, op. cit., p. 97.
R Scroggs, loc. cit.
ibid., p. 83.
This passage is the only othe occurrence of arsēnokoitēs in the New Testament. Also, Paul's understanding of the law here further shows us how foolish it is to dismiss it as a moral guide.
R Williams, op. cit., p. 53. When understood properly it becomes obvious that any sense of opression is far from Paul's mind. One need only read Galatians 3:28 and Ephesians 6:9 to see Paul's views on these issues in perspective.
TM Horner, op. cit., p. 88.
R Williams, op. cit., p. 52.
L Compton, op. cit., p. 111.
KJ Dover, op. cit., p. 85.
RAJ Gagnon, op. cit., p. 68.
J Boswell, op. cit., p. 105.
RAJ Gagnon, op. cit., p. 86.
Some even go so far as to say there is no sexual ethic at all in the Bible. W Wink, op. cit., p. 43.
M White, loc. cit.
Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, 'Sex in Australia: The Australian Study of Health and Relationships', Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, vol. 27, no. 2, April 2003, p. 141.
FL Smith, Sodom's Second Coming, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, 1993, p. 86.
See section on the history of homosexuality above, p. 16.
ER Moberly, 'Homosexuality and the Truth', First Things, no. 71, March 1997, p. 30.
I Bieber and others, Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study, Basic Books, New York, 1962.
S Bradley & K Zucker, 'Gender Identity Disorder: A Review of the Past 10 Years', Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, vol. 36, no. 7, July 1997, pp. 872-880.
ER Moberly, Homosexuality: a New Christian Ethic, James Clarke & Co, Cambridge, 1983, p. 2.
ibid., pp. 244-245.
In one study 34.3% reported much change, 42,7% some change and 22.9% no change. J Nicolosi, DA Byrd & RW Potts, 'Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: A consumer survey of conversion therapy clients', Psychological Reports, vol. 86, no. 3, June 2000, pp. 1071-88.
R Epstein, 'Am I Anti-Gay?', Psychology Today, Jan/Feb 2003.
T Clevenger, 'Gay orthodoxy and Academic Heresy', Regent University Law Review, vol. 14, no. 2, Spring 2002, pp. 246.
ibid., pp. 241.
ibid., pp. 245.
APA, Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, 1992, Standard 1.09, quoted in R Epstein, loc. cit. This code was revised in 2002 using similar, though less explicit language.
Quoted in Catholic Medical Association, Homosexuality and Hope: Statement of the Catholic Medical Association, NARTH, November 2000.
RL Spitzer, 'Psychiatry and Homosexuality', The Wall Street Journal, 23 May 2001.
S LeVay, 'A Difference in Hypothalmic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men', Science, vol. 253, no. 5023, 30 August 1991, pp. 1034-37.
Council for Responsible Genetics, Brief on Sexual Orientation and Genetic Determinism, May 2006.
Distal region of marker Xq28. DH Hamer and others, 'A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation', Science, vol. 261, no. 5119, 16 July 1993, pp. 321-27.
Council for Responsible Genetics, loc. cit.
JM Bailey and others, 'Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and its Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 78, no. 3, March 2000, pp. 524-36.
P Gringas & W Chen, 'Mechanisms for Difference in Monozygous Twins', Early Human Development, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 105-117.
Council for Responsible Genetics, loc. cit.
D Smith, 'Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name', The New York Times, 7 February 2004, Sect B p. 7.
J Miller, 'New Love Breaks Up a 6-Year Relationship at the Zoo', The New York Times, 24 September 2005, Sect B p. 2.
J Owen, 'Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate', National Geographic News, 23 July 2004.
ibid.
This organisation works to promote equality for homosexuals in religious circles championing the principles of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr, apparently unaware of the irony that neither of these men supported homosexual rights.
C Chellew, 'Storming the Gate: Rev Mel White Spreads the Good News', Whosoever Magazine, Jan/Feb 1997.
According to one survey, only 21-37% believed homosexual sex is always wrong. Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, op. cit., p. 119.
P Webster, G Hurst & R Gledhill, 'Gay adoption laws will have no exemptions, Blair tells Catholics', The Times, 30 January 2007. Sadly, these agencies are responsible for placing many of the neediest, most difficult to place children.
Provided that they are not offering a service receiving government funding.
Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Inquiry into Sexuality Discrimination, December 1997, 5.106-9.
Sect. 116 of the Australian Constitution bars any law “prohibiting the free exercise of any religion”.
A Horin, 'Not Such a Gay Life', Sydney Morning Herald, 5 August 2006.
C Deveny, 'Gay Marriage? Why Would Anyone Want To?', The Age, 28 February 2007.
ibid.
Quoted in S Kurtz, 'Beyond Gay Marriage”, Weekly Standard, vol. 8. no. 45, 4 August 2003.
National Commission on America’s Urban Families, Families First, Washington DC, 31, 1993, quoted in Australian House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, To Have and to Hold: Stratagies to Strengthen Marriage and Relationships, June 1998, p. 72.
When no-fault divorce was introduced in Australia by the Family Law Act 1975, rates of divorce leaped from 4.2 per 1000 in 1971 to 18.8 per 1000 in 1976. ibid., p. 15.
S Kurtz, loc. cit.
S Kurtz, loc. cit. Interestingly, 82% of women believed in monogamy, regardless of orientation.
J Stacey & TJ Biblarz, '(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?', The American Sociological Review, vol. 66, April 2001, p. 166.
J Millbank, Meet the Parents, Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (NSW) Inc, January 2002, p. 21.
K Davis, 'The Meaning and Significance of Marriage in Contemporary Society' in K Davis (ed.) Contemporary Martriage, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1985, pp. 7-8.
Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, op. cit., pp. 35-40.
J Stacey & TJ Biblarz, op. cit., pp. 168-71.
S Sarantakos, 'Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education and Social Development', Children Australia, vol. 21, 1996, pp. 23-31.
This may be due to stigma from other students rather than any direct effect of parenting.
K Cameron & P Cameron, 'Homosexual Parents', Adolescence, vol. 31, no. 124, Winter 1996, pp. 757-76.
For a sample of the experiences of children with homosexual parents, see K Cameron & P Cameron, 'Children of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties',Psychological Reports, vol. 90, no. 1, February 2002, pp. 71-82.
M White, loc. cit. The irony of this argument is that it implies that there is something sinful in homosexuality for it to be forgiven.
ER Moberly, Homosexuality: a New Christian Ethic, James Clarke & Co, Cambridge, 1983, p. 52.
The word 'gay' has been reported as the most commonly used insult by school children in the UK, along with other words with homosexual innuendo. D Winterman, 'How “Gay” Became Children's Insult of Choice', BBC News Magazine, 18 March 2008.