The Christian Case for Gay: A Scholarly Approach

              Words that we say can hurt, and we may never know. These words hurt even more when they stem from generalizations and misinformation. When someone is hiding a part of themselves for fear of your judgment, and you make a comment against people like him/her, it creates fear and rejection in that person's heart. This is what it is like to be a Christian who also happens to identify as gay. In this paper, I will be addressing some Biblical texts that are used as ammunition against homosexuality, and pointing out ways in which the hetero-centric system of the church does more harm than good. Through this examination of facts and reason, I hope to show how non-heterosexual individuals should be able to be open and out within their church families without fear of oppression or rebuke.

First off, I'd like to take a moment to explain the problem with the common Christian how-to-deal-with-homosexuality mantra, “Love the sinner; hate the sin.” Sin is defined in the Bible as something that draws us away from God. Many non-heterosexuals would tell you that their love relationships are built on trust and working together, which can bring them closer to God. Of course, there are non-heterosexuals who have less positive relationships, just as there are heterosexuals whose relationships fall away from God's plan of compassion, intimacy, and purity. Many people see examples of non-heterosexual people portrayed as people with their lives riddled with sin, due to conservative media coverage and television portrayal. Judging homosexuality based on this limited information is akin to judging heterosexuality based on the movie, "The Hangover". 

            Also, a person's sexuality is much more than simply who they prefer to mate with. As Suzanne Pharr put it, “"Hetero-sexist people often assert that homosexuals have the choice of not being homosexual; that is, we don't have to act out our sexual identity. In that case, I want to hear heterosexuals talk about their willingness not to act out their sexual identity, including not just sexual activity but heterosexual social interconnections and heterosexual privilege. It is a question of wholeness. It is very difficult for one to be denied the life of a sexual being, whether expressed in sex or physical affection, and to feel complete, whole. For our loving relationships with humans feed the life of the spirit and enable us to overcome our basic isolation and to be interconnected with humankind." Being non-heterosexual isn't a string of non-related “slip-ups”. Non-heterosexual thought is not akin to wanting a cookie on occasion even though you're on a diet. Sexual identity is a quintessential part of personality. How can a Christian, a believer of Hebrew's “agape”, or unconditional love, say “I love you, but I hate a big part of who you are.”

There are many texts in the Bible which, when taken out of context, can be used to condemn non-heterosexuality. The following are some of the most commonly used. First off, there is Leviticus 18:22 "If a man lies with mankind, as with womankind, it is unnatural." It sounds fairly straightforward, however the Hebrew word translated in most editions of the Bible as “unnatural” is the word “to'ebah”. In some editions, it is also translated as “an abomination”. This word is, however, used in many other passages to mean contextually “against common practice” (Robinson). It is used as such in Genesis 43:32 "...because the Egyptians could not eat food with the Hebrews, for that is unnatural to the Egyptians." Here the word is referring to the fact that it is against Egyptian ritual law, not necessarily that it is despicable. The word is also found describing shellfish, (Leviticus 11:10) and women wearing men's clothing. (Deuteronomy 22:5)

What then, does this verse really mean? Well, if you look at the culture of the time, women were ranked much lower than men, hence the clarification of “as with womankind”. Women were arranged into marriages, often with men much older than them, with little to no say in the matter, making sex often an act of control and humiliation. No wonder then, to treat a man in such way, would be considered “to'ebah”. It would be challenging the established roles of gender within society. In this case, gay sex is just as “unnatural” as Hillary Clinton running for president.

                   Another common reference is found in Genesis 19, in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. In this story, God sends angels down to see if there is righteousness in these towns. Lot and his wife (whose name isn't mentioned by the author of Genesis) receive them with great hospitality, but the men of the town come to them, commanding them to bring the strangers out so that they may (assuming forcibly) have sex with them. God then condemns the area and destroys everyone in it. In Hebrew tradition of the time, hospitality was essential. There were no Holiday Inns for travelers. If nobody was hospitable to travelers, they would have nowhere to stay and, most likely, nothing to eat. The wicked people of Sodom and Gomorrah not only were attempting to take the angels from the hospitality of Lot and his wife, thereby rejecting them from town and comfort, they also meant to use sex to humiliate them further. Comparing a loving gay relationship to this story is like comparing it to the sex crimes of U.S. Soldiers against Iraqi prisoners of war. Were these soldiers just lustful men with unusual taste out for some thrills? No. The intent of rape and humiliation is here, and it is completely incomparable to consensual gay relationships.

                 Probably the most commonly used passage, however, is Romans 1:27, where Paul addresses the sins practiced by the Christians in Rome. "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." To analyze this verse, you have to know the context, in which Paul also describes Christians as worshiping idols the way the Pagan Romans were. In Roman society of the time, it was customary for men in positions of power to assert themselves by sexually penetrating people of lower status. These people were women, slaves, and teenage boys. Once again, for a Christian man in this society to commit an act toward another man that was known to be so degrading, it would be considered a sin against this man. I also think it is worth noting that the verse states that these men “were inflamed with lust” and “committed indecent acts”, and not “fell into compassionate love” and “formed committed relationships out of mutual respect.” By Biblical morality, lust is always a sinful attitude, whether homosexual in nature or otherwise. The undignified, lustful committing of "indecent acts" is very seldom comparable to non-heterosexual relationships in the present day United States.

                 This topic is one that is highly controversial in our faith, and I understand that it takes a radical change of perspective to accept things traditionally known as taboo. However, if Christians look past stereotypes and really study the Bible the way they should, by going beyond reading passages out of context and by researching the culture in which they were written, they will see the need to reconcile our community of believers with a community often rejected from us, and to promote peace and acceptance of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. I will close with a verse which I believe to be the most relevant, 1 Peter 4:8 “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.”