Board index ‹ LGBT: Gays, Lesbians, Bisexual, Transgender, and Homosexuality

[jimwalton]

I have been studying what the Bible says about homosexuality for months now. I have wrestled with the texts, read commentaries, read books, prayed, talked with people, and meditated some more. I have come to some conclusions that I’m ready to share. I wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to say this is God’s final word on the matter, but I am confident in what I will be saying. If you’re going to read it at all, please read it all the way through so you get the full flow of what I’m saying. Don’t just read one paragraph, or half of it, or you will both miss and distort my teaching.

I have studied all the texts in the Bible about homosexuality, but I’ve gone especially deep into Genesis 19, Leviticus 18, and Romans 1. I can say with unmitigated confidence that the Bible has an uncompromising consistency in its teaching about homosexuality. It’s just impossible to dismiss that in the Bible homosexual practice is considered a sin. It’s wrong, and there are no ways around it. Many books work tremendous gymnastics to exegete passages and explicate them to show that that’s not what the Bible really says, but they are all prodigious efforts to repeal the obvious. I have read the work-arounds and digested their exegeses. There’s no way around this one: homosexuality is consistently and unremittingly considered sin in no uncertain terms. I don’t know how to say this any more strongly. I will exchange notes with anyone who wishes on this one. BUT DON’T YOU DARE STOP READING HERE.

At the same time I have been studying the book of Galatians, on a completely different schedule for a completely different purpose, but it speaks, I believe, to the issue of homosexuality. While Galatians by no means advocates any sort of antinomianism (just chuck the law), at the same time it teaches very strongly that the Law does not hold us. Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount teaches the same truth. Christ has set us free—free from sin, and free from the Law (Gal. 5.1). No one can earn their salvation by works, and none of us live by the Law. We are not defined by rules. We live by the Spirit, and we live by faith, through grace. We don’t live by any external bounds, but by the Spirit inside us. Our life in Christ is not about record-keeping, or even good behavior, but about grace and the Spirit.

This is not to imply that our freedom in Christ eliminates ethics. Far from it. Paul clearly saw the danger brewing in the whole thought of “we are free in Christ” and “the Law has no hold on us.” Read Gal. 5.13 and Romans 6.1. He clarified that those who live by the Spirit are called to be guided by the Spirit, and we are never to indulge in the desires and acts of the flesh. Look at Galatians 3.19. Even though the Law was a temporary interlude, it’s still greatly significant. It came from God and has good things to accomplish. It’s not like we throw it in the trash can, but we also recognize its place: It shows us very clearly what sin is, but it doesn’t govern our lives.

At the same time I was reading an article by Craig Bubeck in Christianity Today (“The Gospel in One Word,” CT, June 2013, pp. 53-55). God himself is love by definition. God’s justice and wrath must be described in the context of his love (Gen. 3; Rom. 5.8-9). God’s wrath is not an exception or counterpart to his love, but a consequence of it. When we are separated by our sin nature from his love, it is this very state in God’s wrath that occasions his sacrificial love. Jesus breaches the chasm that is sin and provides atonement. This atonement is not Jesus rescuing sinners from the hand of an angry Father, but restoring us to fellowship with Him. When we respond in faith, we return to Him the love for which we were created. Those who choose to remain in sin are still outside of this fellowship by their own election. God’s wrath is not about eliciting fear; Jesus didn’t come to save us from a monster God, but to show us God’s overpowering love. “What is the Law now?” Jesus asks. Love God, and love each other. The foundational, preeminent law of all Scripture is love (Mt. 22.34-40; Mk. 12.28-34; James 2.8; Gal. 5.13-14). God loves us (Jn. 3.16), sacrificially gave himself in love (Rom. 5.8), and we are asked to respond in love.

This morning (6/17/13) I was studying in Phil. 1.9-11 Paul’s prayer for the Philippian people: That their love would abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, to discern what is best and be pure and blameless. Yes, we are always called to love. Love is what defines us, just as God is love by definition, but that love is not some mushy sentimentalism where everything is OK. It is outrageous love, yes, just as the Father has shown for us, but with the necessary limitations of full knowledge and discerning insight. It is love that is based in truth (Jn. 17.17) and holiness, purity and blamelessness. Authentic and Godly love is always consistent with God’s character, and has God’s aim, ways, and means. It is a Godly mindset and Godly behavior. It grasps the heart of truth and lives it with consistency. It is discerning in that it selects, classifies, and applies what is furnished by a full knowledge of the truth. Love includes spiritual discernment and moral discrimination.

See, this is where all these things really matter. If love is discerning, and we no longer live by external laws but by the Spirit of God in us and the Law of Love, and if there is true freedom in Christ, then that has to inform everything about who we are, how we think, and how we behave. So what happens when this Law of Love comes face to face with sin? It has to discern what is best (Phil. 1.10). We have to apply the right tests and reach the right decisions in things which present moral differences.

When Paul came up against eating meat offered to idols, or making one day more sacred than another, he concluded that we are not to judge each other, for each is trying to live for the Lord, and each will give an account to God for what we choose (Rom. 14).

When Jesus was presented with the woman caught in adultery (Jn. 8.1-11), he had no condemnation for her, but love, but also admonished her to stop sinning.

When Jesus was asked about divorce (Mt. 19.8), even though God hates it, Jesus spoke a principle of accommodation; it was allowed in certain circumstances because of the people’s hearts. Sin was affirmed, but there was a merciful concession. Something less than the ideal was authorized by God.

David and his men ate the showbread. Jesus’ disciples picked grain on the Sabbath. Paul said in Galatians that it wasn’t about circumcision or uncircumcision, but about faith showing itself through love (Gal. 5.6). This isn’t justifying sin, it’s living by the Spirit. The Bible always always invites us to take into account things such as motive and nature, behavior, spirit, and heart. It’s not just the behavior, but the heart that counts.

So this is what I am saying: The Bible is unrelenting in its description of homosexuality as sin, but it’s also true that some (and only some) who seek same-sex marriage today are not at all like the situations of Genesis 19, Leviticus 18, and Romans 1. The ancient world knew nothing of what is being played out in our society. Theirs was a harsh and sinful world of pederasty, dominance, rape, and sexual abuse. I would say without hesitation that many homosexuals today are still motivated by passion and lust, by rebellion, and by “against nature” (Rom. 1.18-32), and this behavior is an abomination, and these people will receive God’s judgment for their sin. By the same token, since we are using discerning love informed by deep insight, trying to apply the right tests and reach the right decisions in things which present moral differences, that those who are by nature homosexuals, and who even in their homosexuality are seeking God, that we must act in discerning love and principles of accommodation and merciful concession. In Paul’s day, idolatry and the Sabbath (Rom. 14) were no small issues. Nor was homosexuality. But he accommodates the first two, and we recognize that the homosexuality of ancient Corinth was mostly pederasty. I think God commands us to be people of discerning love, to take into account such things as motive and nature, behavior, spirit, and heart, and be mercifully accommodating in certain situations and circumstances.

Some would say that in such a position I am compromising and promoting sin. Paul took the same accusation on the chin when he spoke of living by grace and the Spirit of Christ rather than by the list of rules. See Rom. 6.1 and Gal. 2.17. It’s just not so. Was divorce ever allowed even though God hates it? Absolutely. Was adultery ever OK? Well, if someone’s brother died and left a widow, a surviving brother was to go have sex with his widow to create progeny, even if the living brother was married. I’m not endorsing compromise, weakening of ethics, or playing loose with holiness. I’m just trying to exercise the Law of Love and freedom based on the character of God and the way he has revealed himself. Does this open “Pandora’s Box”? It’s not supposed to, because what we are truly expected to do is follow the leading of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15.28; Gal. 2.17), which is far more than a liver-shiver and involves history, experience, wisdom, debate, and judicious assessment of a variety of forms of evidence, stories, and experiences.

In Matthew 9.13; 12.7 (Hos. 6.6), Jesus teaches that mercy supplants or relativizes the Law’s specific commandments (Ex. 34.21). Mercy is one of the most important character qualities that Jesus seeks to inculcate in his followers. Jesus was known to associate with sinners of all stripes. Mercy, not sacrifice (one of the chief acts of worship), is God’s will, and shows purity more than rules do. Showing God’s mercy to people is precisely what the Law requires of us.

The point is to exemplify a rigorous standard of righteousness, but also a heart of mercy, for justice values both authority and the value of persons. Honest judgment allows for both punishment and commutation. We must never be soft, but we need not always be hard. While justice requires righteous action, in the Scripture it is often connected with mercy: caring for orphans, widows, foreigners, the oppressed, the poor, and the infirmed. It only makes sense to let our attitudes and behaviors with regard to homosexuality be nuanced. Sometimes it makes sense to subordinate the Law’s specific commandments to its deeper intent, and deal mercifully with human weakness, frailty, and even failure. In Matthew 18.22 and the following parable, Jesus proclaims the superabundance of divine mercy that the church is called to display to the world.

Will some abuse this position? Of course they will, and they fall under the teaching of Galatians 6.1. But for those not abusing this position, it’s not my place to judge (Rom. 14). I have to discern as best I can. I am accountable for the way I think and live, and they are accountable to the way they think and live. Don’t get me wrong—we live in a very God-defying culture, and I think so much of the homosexual activity around us is a vivid illustration of it, just as it was in Sodom and Romans 1. It’s outright rebellion against God, and the spiritual depravity is obvious. But not all of it is, and in those cases I think we need to show nuance in mercy, wisdom, assessment, spirit, motive, heart, and morality.

ADDED 10 MONTHS LATER: For further thoughts from me, please see new post: "Further Thoughts About Homosexuality"

[a concerned friend]

I disagree that good motives can justify wicked behavior. I also disagree when you say not all homosexual activity is an outright rebellion against God. I think you are twisting the meaning of several passages. Let's go through the ones you use:

1) Eating meat that was sacrificed to idols. You present this passage in the context of when the "Law of Love comes face to face with sin". But Paul's very point was that eating the meat wasn't sinful, but when people were acting against their conscience then they were making it evil. This is not an example of an evil thing becoming OK when done with the right motivation, it's an example of something good becoming evil when done with the wrong motivation.

2) Woman caught in adultery. You use this passage to highlight Jesus' lack of condemnation. Jesus came to die for our sins and offer forgiveness to anyone who would come to him. But that doesn't mean judgment won't ever come. When Jesus comes again, it'll be a time of dividing the sheep and goats. Right now we're not to pull up the tares, lest we also uproot the wheat, but Jesus will do it at the time of the harvest (when He returns). So it's not our job to try to judge people, but it is our job to declare the righteous judgments of God and to warn people of the wrath to come. Wrath we are free from if we're sanctified by Jesus' blood, but wrath we'll have to face if we deny Jesus.

3) When Jesus talks about divorce being allowed in the Mt. 19:8 you present it as God authorizing something less then the ideal. But in that passage, He doesn't say God allowed it, He says Moses allowed it. But even though Moses allowed it, those who do it are still sinning. His very point was God doesn't lower His standard, sin is always sin.

4) David eating the showbread, Jesus' disciples picking grain on the Sabbath. You present these as more examples of God not really caring as much about our actions as our motivation. But were David or the Disciples violating God's commands, or the traditions of men? Jesus was against the pharisees, not because they kept the law, but because they replaced the law with the traditions of men. When the disciples plucked the grain, they weren't in rebellion of God, they were in rebellion of the pharisees who were distorting the Word of God.

5) Circumcision you present as another example of God taking into account our "motive and nature, behavior, spirit, and heart" instead of just our actions. When Paul's talking about circumcision not availing anything, he's talking about the inability of us to save ourselves by fulfilling the law. We can't save ourselves by our works, it's faith working through love. So if we try to replace God's grace with our works (circumcision) we "become estranged from Christ" because we're trying to justify ourselves through the law (5:4). So this passage isn't talking about judging our actions in context of our motivation, it's about the shortcomings of the law to save.

None of these examples do we see something evil becoming acceptable because it was done in right motivation. When you use all these passages as evidence that a wicked lifestyle could be acceptable to God if done in the right spirit, I think you're twisting scripture to present a message it doesn't say.

6) You present Rom. 14 as why you aren't supposed to judge. The chapter is about "disputes over doubtful things" (such as eating meat sacrificed to idols, holidays, fasting, etc). But you yourself say homosexuality is not a "doubtful thing" when you say that scripture clearly presents it as evil. A better passage to look to for a Christians' reaction to homosexuality would be 1 Corinthians 5 which deals with sexual immorality in the church. That passage says we're not to judge those outside the church (God will judge them), but don't associate with a Christian who participates in sexual immorality.


It's popular today to think that God doesn't care so much what we do, as long as we're doing it in love, not hurting anyone, and it doesn't bother our conscience ... but what does scripture say? It says that if we're walking in the Spirit, we won't do the things of the flesh. If we're pleasing God, we won't participate in sexual immortally (Galatians 5) which homosexuality is. And if a self-proclaimed Christian is sexually immoral, we are not to keep company with them.

You say "sometimes it makes sense to subordinate the Law's specific commandments to its deeper intent" and I think this is what the pharisees did, until they completely made the law obsolete with their own traditions. I think this is the path you are on when you say homosexuality is sinful, but God doesn't mind it when ...

[jimwalton]

Thanks for writing. I’m always glad to talk these things out, because they’re so deep and complex. I couldn’t agree more that good motives don’t justify wicked behavior. I think we disagree on what counts as wicked behavior, and that’s where our discussion needs to rest, as you yourself see.

You know, these are very difficult matters for us all. I appreciate your willingness to talk about it.

Romans 14, and the eating of meat sacrificed to idols. You suggest that Paul’s point was that eating the meat wasn’t sinful. I would counter that Paul’s examples definitely involve what people considered sin. V. 5: one day more sacred than another. Well, the Sabbath (see also Col. 2.16) was part of the Ten Commandments, and God told Moses to execute a person who violated that law (Num. 15.32-36). It was sin, dead-on. V. 14: Even the food itself was a problem, let alone food that was offered to idols. Lev. 11 (since 2 homosexuality texts are in Leviticus) spells out what foods were sinful. Sinful. It even uses the same language in Lev. 11.41-42: “detestable.” And some of the same language as in Rom. 1.18-32: do not defile yourself. In Rom. 14.20, Paul says, I know Leviticus says it’s sinful, but all food is clean. Hm. See, what do you do with that? It’s my understanding that this was a dispute was not just because of differences in personal preferences, but because the one group (the non-eaters) definitely considered the eaters to be sinning in what they were doing. We can keep discussing this further.

Woman Caught in Adultery (Jn. 8). I agree with most of what you said. Thank you for a good analysis. One of the things you said, though, is that it’s our job to declare the righteous judgments of God, and warn people of the wrath to come. My point was that Jesus didn’t do that in John 8. Nor in John 4 (woman at the well), or 3 (Nicodemus), or, frankly, even when he cleansed the temple (Jn. 216). Even though I know what you mean (we need to speak the truth to people, don’t we??), I don’t find that verse or that teaching, about it being our job to declare the righteous judgments of God. You got me with that one. Give me that verse and we can talk about it further. As far as the warning to flee from the wrath to come, that was part of John’s preaching (Mt. 3.7; Lk. 3.7). I guess I need help again: Where does it say this is our ministry? Certainly it will come up in time as we preach the whole gospel, and for sure it will be part of many conversations, but where’s it our job? I need you to help me here.

Divorce (Mt. 19.8). You make a good point. I will say, however, that in Dt. 24.1, divorce is not forbidden, which does speak to my point. It was permitted or tolerated, and so was remarriage after it. Now, I really can’t go with the idea that those four verses were Moses’ interjection and not the inspired word of God. Much has been written as people wrangle over this text, but the Dt. 24.1-4 text doesn’t say that divorce per se is sin.

Showbread and picking grain on Sabbath. You’ve misunderstood me on this one. God cares very much about both our actions and our motives. But you’re absolutely right about David’s and the disciples’ actions not being sinful against God. In both cases they were going against what people of the culture considered what was right and wrong, but not against the Word of God.

Circumcision. Again, you make many good and valid points. The argument about circumcision in Galatians is almost completely about justification by works. I agree with you. In Gal. 2.3, “yet not even Titus...was compelled to be circumcised.” The apostles approved of Paul’s preaching, but there was talk that maybe Titus should be circumcised for the sake of conciliation. But the message was freedom in Christ and not being bound by the law, even for an issue that was the core of Judaism and the sign of the covenant itself. I still think it touches on the ideas of our motive and nature, behavior, spirit, and heart, but that’s just me. Even if it wasn’t for justification, they still wanted him to do it.

Of course I see what you’re saying in all of this, and I am not advocating that we take something evil and make it OK as long as our motives are good and it’s done in the right spirit. God forbid. My second paragraph is very strong, in my opinion, and I wrote it that way intentionally. It’s very difficult to evaluate homosexuality today since some expressions of it are completely different than anything the ancient world knew or even thought about. That’s where the problems (confusions) come in. In ways it’s a little like evaluating our business systems now. They didn’t HAVE employees like we do; they had slaves. (Well, some employees today are like slaves.) Well, we can’t just transfer the teachings about slaves to employees, because it’s not the same. Some principles and some teachings may carry over, but it’s not the same.

In the ancient world, they knew nothing of “sexual orientation” or of same-sex marriage. Homosexuality in the ancient world was mostly pederasty (child sexual abuse), rape, slave sexual abuse, an abusive way to establish a pecking order in society (much like some situations are in our prisons are today), idolatry, and flagrant, godless, sexual defiance (like Gaius Caligula; look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Caligula#Scandals). This is what the Bible was talking about. The hard part comes in figuring out how this translates to us. If the Bible is talking about rape, idolatry, pederasty, and godless defiance, does that automatically apply to two Christians of homosexual orientation who are trying to be godly, struggle with their sexual orientation, and want to have a loving, caring, committed relationship? Is it the same, or is it different? Hard to know, isn’t it? We say that the Bible unequivocally condemns homosexuality, and it does. But if the only homosexuality they knew was violent and idolatrous, of course they condemned it. What if it’s not? Is it still immoral? And if you answer yes, I want to know why.

Your second to last paragraph is a “duh” to me. Of course our culture just wants to love and tolerate everybody, and no judging (which means you’re not allowed to disagree with me about anything I’m doing). Of course what really counts for us is what Scripture says. You are absolutely right about if we’re walking in the Spirit we won’t do the things of the flesh. Is homosexuality evil if it’s two Christian people trying to love each other in a permanent, committed relationship? That’s why there is so much debate and head-scratching. Now, in case you’re thinking this, of course incest is always wrong, even if it’s in a permanent, committed relationship. It’s not the “permanent committed” part that would make something right. I get that; I’m not as stupid as I look. What’s the difference? As I said, homosexuality in the ancient world was always abusive, idolatrous, or defiance against God.

And to end on an uncomfortable note, I find it offensive that you accuse me of pharisaism. They didn’t subordinate the Law to a deeper intent; they marginalized the deeper intent with more rules to achieve a status of purity based on works. It's a very hurtful, and I think inaccurate, comparison.

This is an extremely difficult issue. The church should never bow to the whimsical, self-seeking “morality” systems of our culture. By the same token, we should wrestle with Scripture to find out what the authors meant by it, what pleases God, and how best to apply it to our lives. You have brought up many good points, and believe me when I say I still struggle with it all. I even titled my writing as “tentative conclusions.” I have no agenda except to find the truth of the word of God and stay true to it. I know what the writers meant when they said “homosexuality.” And that’s not what we mean by it...sometimes. Sometimes it most certainly is, and the judgment of the Lord is certain. But what about the other times, that other stripe of meaning? That’s where it gets hard, in my opinion.

Thanks for talking. Feel free to talk more.

[fuzcase]

Hi Jim,

I am new to your site and learned of it from your brother John, who I had the pleasure of listening to speak on the topic of Creation in Genesis. He shared some very intriguing perspectives I'd never thought of before. He shared your website with me as a good resource for further information on discerning the Bible. I have read several of your posts and appreciate your humility and logical, thorough, respectful perspectives. I too long for respectful discourse in these matters and believe I have found a venue where that occurs. Thank you for having this website.

I have spent many mind and prayer cycles on the topic of homosexuality. I have close family members who are gay that make this topic very real and personal to me. It saddens me how divisive this issue has become in our culture. Many of my family and friends are strained by this very topic.

My life experience and studies of the bible have led me to two primary conclusions:

1.Like you, I am confident in stating the Bible consistently and clearly calls homosexual behavior a sin. I appreciate how you started your conversation with this fact. So many begin their position by attempting to explain away all of the references in the bible to the contrary. It's refreshing to see someone unashamedly start their position with this statement.

2.Similarly, I am confident that God (both in self evident nature and the bible) created man and woman to be companions able to pro-create who become one in marriage.

I find the latter point shaping my position more than the former. Men and women coming together as one with the ability to pro-create is an amazing, beautiful, unique relationship in our world that, at a minimum, calls for seperation/distinction and, at most, celebration and honor. Regardless of how one feels about former, having a distinction reserved for a man-woman relationship (marriage) seems like a natural, morally neutral, respectful and reasonable conclusion. Interestingly, I find myself being able to hold this position even if I were an aethiest.

The former point shapes my position to a lesser degree. It is the first point that requires and commands mercy as it speaks to sin. The latter position speaks to glorification and celebration to God's design. Would one be sinning if they chose not to get married? No. Is it worth celebration? Yes. The reason I call out the distinction is I think so many feel like in order to show mercy, we must not only not convict but also celebrate. I don't subscribe to this line of reasoning, to me there's a clear distinction between mercy and celebration.

I would be curious to hear your thoughts on this.

I'll close with a couple thoughts from your position. You mention:

So this is what I am saying: The Bible is unrelenting in its description of homosexuality as sin, but it’s also true that some (and only some) who seek same-sex marriage today are not at all like the situations of Genesis 19, Leviticus 18, and Romans 1. The ancient world knew nothing of what is being played out in our society. Theirs was a harsh and sinful world of pederasty, dominance, rape, and sexual abuse. and we recognize that the homosexuality of ancient Corinth was mostly pederasty.

I'm always a little wary of statements like “The ancient world knew nothing of what is being played out in our society.”.

1.How do we know that for sure?
2.God would have known all types of situations that could occur. For Him to not make mention of same sex loving relationships (even in Genesis which is culture neutral) seems to me a far more indicator that there's really no justification in calling it out seperately from other forms.

Thoughts on that?

Look forward to having a dialogue on this important topic.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for writing. I love what you have said and written. I would be pleased to pursue any particular discussion about this subject that you would like to discuss.

You said, "I am confident that God (both in self evident nature and the bible) created man and woman to be companions able to pro-create who become one in marriage." I agree with you so strongly. As Christians we tend to speak of marriage emphasizing unity, procreativity, and as a sacramental mirroring of the trinity. In Gn. 2.24 ("and the two shall become one flesh"), the idea presented isn't that of complementarity (overcoming the incompleteness of male and female), but that of a kinship bond. The focus of the text is on their similarity, not on their male/female complementarity. It is their similarity (bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh) in shared life and experience that makes it possible for them to fulfill God's command to them. It isn't resolving the issue of incompleteness (as in a male and female need each other to procreate), but the issue of aloneness. Notice also that the entire discussion of one flesh in Genesis (and throughout the whole Bible) takes place without even a hint of concern with procreation. The one-flesh union of man and woman as narrated in Gn. 2 is not dependent on children or progeny in an essential way; children are nowhere to be found in Gn. 2 at all. When Jesus refers to this text when he is questioned about marriage, he doesn't mention children either. So also Paul in Eph. 5.21-33. As you said, God created man and woman to be companions able to procreate as one flesh in marriage, yes. No disagreement. I'm not sure how that comments on my tentative conclusions about homosexuality. I agree with what you said about marriage "having a distinction reserved for a man-woman relationship (marriage) seems like a natural, morally neutral, respectful and reasonable conclusion." I could hardly agree more.

You asked about the ancient world's practices with regard to homosexuality. As you might guess, people have done quite a bit of work on this. For some brief reading (without overwhelming you) I would refer you to http://epistle.us/hbarticles/neareast.html for the context of Lev. 18.

Sarah Ruden, expert in Greco-Roman culture (and also a Quaker) had this to say about Rom. 1.27: "For more than 300 years before he was born, first the Greeks and then the Romans had ruled his home city of Tarsus and made it as similar to the cities of southern Europe as they could. But however much of the Greco-Roman worldview Paul might have adopted, what he heard at home and in the synagogue would not have led him to tolerate homosexuality. Jewish teaching was clear: homosexual acts were an abomination.
"But another teaching mandated circumcision for all males in God’s covenant. Paul put this aside; Judaism would not always hand down what Christianity would practice. Perhaps, in the matter of homosexuality, what he saw as a boy influenced him more than his tradition did. Among the female prostitutes on the streets, or in the windows or doorways of brothels, were males, on average a lot younger. At any slave auction he found himself watching, there might be attractive boys his own age knocked down to local pimps at high prices, to the sound of jokes about how much they would have to endure during their brief careers in order to be worth it. A pious Jewish family, as Paul’s probably was, would not have condoned sexual abuse of any of its slaves, but he would know from his non-Jewish friends that household slaves normally were less respected as outlets for bodily functions than were the household toilets, and that a sanctioned role of slave boys was anal sex with free adults.
"Flagrant pedophiles might have pestered him and his friends on the way to and from school, offered friendship, offered tutoring, offered athletic training, offered money or gifts. But adults he trusted would have told him that even any flirting could ruin his reputation, and at worst get him officially classed as a male prostitute, with the loss of all of his civic rights. After his conversion, as he preached what Jesus meant for human society, he wasn’t going to let anyone believe that it included any of this.
"The Roman poet Martial uses “to be cut to pieces” as the ordinary term for “to be the passive partner.” The Greeks and Romans thought that the active partner in homosexual intercourse used, humiliated, and physically and morally damaged the passive one. Heterosexual penetration could be harmless in the Christian community, in marriage; homosexual penetration could be harmless nowhere. There were no gay households; there were in fact no gay institutions or gay culture at all, in the sense of times or places in which it was mutually safe for men to have anal sex with one another.
"In 5th-century Athens (the gay paradise we hear of), one of the most common insults in comedy was “having a loose anus,” meaning depraved—not just sexually, but generally.
"It was a system of ethics that locked people into this cruel regime, a regime which also included the erotic oppression of women. While Paul may seem to mention lesbianism, this was such a rare or little-noticed phenomenon in the ancient world that it is likely he instead means anal penetration of women by men. That did happen often, but men valued it less than penetration of boys: women were made to be penetrated anyway; a real man needed to transform an at least potentially active and powerful creature into a weak and inferior one.
"The Greeks and Romans even held homosexual rape to be divinely sanctioned.
"No wonder parents guarded their young sons doggedly. It was, for example, normal for a family of any standing to dedicate one slave to a son’s protection, especially on the otherwise unsupervised walk to and from school: this was the pedagogue, or “child leader.” Since success with freeborn, citizen-class boys was rare, predators naturally turned to those with no protectors, young male slaves and prostitutes. Besides that of the pedagogue, another telling slave profession—perhaps only among Romans—was that of the deliciae (“pet”) or concubines (“bedmate”), a slave boy whose main duty was passive anal sex with the master. The public acknowledged such a child’s status, as well as his vulnerability to being retired at a young age. His retirement was not likely to be a happy one; he kept the stigma of passive sodomy, but he lost the protection of his close relationship to his master, while usually remaining bound to the same household and the other slaves with the accumulated grudges. They may have refused him, as he would have passed his “boom,” even the status of a sexual plaything. (She continues her chapter with pages and pages of information.)
"Paul could have, like generations of Greek and Roman moralistic and cynical commentators, lit into passive homosexuality, into the victims. But in Romans 1 he makes no distinction between active and passive: the whole transaction is wrong. This is crucially indicated by his use of the Greek word for “males,” arsenes, for everybody; he does not use the word for “men.” The Classical and New Testament word for a socially acceptable, sexually functional man is aner. In traditional parlance, this could mean an active but never a passive homosexual. But Paul places on a par all the male participants in homosexual acts, emphasizing this in Romans 2.1 (which see), and clearly implying that they are all morally degraded and that they all become physically debilitated from the sex act with each other. Such effects were unheard of among the Greeks and Romans when it came to active homosexuals: these were thought only to draw their passive partners’ moral and physical integrity into themselves.
"According to all of the evidence, Paul’s revolutionary message stuck. This may be in part because he told his audience a more resonant truth than that of sexual misconduct in itself. First look at what he immediately passes on to in Romans 1.28-2.1. I picture Paul flushed and sweating in his rage as he writes that everyone is responsible for what pederasty has made of society: especially those who, egging one another on in an insolent, boastful clique, damage others with active sodomy and then blame them. These acts are “the very same things,” no matter who is doing what to whom. Compare the list of horrors in vv. 29ff to Gal. 5.16-21."

I hope it helps to read that. There is more, but I don't want to just back up the dump truck and unload.

As to your statement, "God would have known all types of situations that could occur. For Him to not make mention of same sex loving relationships (even in Genesis which is culture neutral) seems to me a far more indicator that there's really no justification in calling it out seperately from other forms." Based on the cultural research I have just copied to you, if God had referred to same-sex loving relationships in Leviticus or Romans, I get the idea that people would have looked at each other with that "deer caught in the headlights" expression, in total lack of comprehension about that. But on another level, you make perfect sense. It's why I have to write "my tentative conclusions". The force of the teaching of Scripture is SO strong and SO consistent. I just wonder, and I struggle with it all, if some things we are seeing are outside of the intent of the teaching of Scripture, and we are left to seek the Spirit about it. That's all: I just wonder.

Talk back to me as you wish. There is a lot to discuss here.

[fuzcase]

Hey Jim,

Thanks for all the good info. I have no doubt there was a heavy dose of that form of homosexuality going on. We are left to speculate whether other forms existed. I would have to imagine there were a few closets even at that time. Not that either of these points really matter. One thing we know for sure is God created man and woman to be companions, his plan plays out in our anatomy, and he blesses it. I think what he provided us is unique and beautiful and we should w/o guilt or fear be able to celebrate it as a unique and distinct.

I agree that we need to show nuance in mercy, wisdom, assessment, spirit, motive, heart, and morality.

For us, how that plays out in our lives is that we welcome my brother-in-law and partner into our lives and home just like any of our other family members and friends. We introduce them to our friends, invite them to church, introduce them there. They are welcome to stay in our home, share a bed (without judgement like we do with my unmarried sister and her boyfriend). They both interact and know our kids, watch our kids, exchange gifts with our kids. We visit them and their circle of friends with our kids. An analogy I like to use is that we treat the homosexual acts like we do smoking. My brother smokes. We don't agree with it but we don't dwell or condemn him of it either. We humbly pray that these life relationships and touch points show far more mercy, respect, and compassion than agreeing that their relationship is the same as ours. There are many similarities but also many differences. Another analogy I like to use is that of Baptism vs Dedications. Both are well intentioned and in love, but they are two different things. In our case we've been extended the same mercy, respect, and compassion in reverse by them not condemning us on how we feel about marriage. I wish that could be the case for everyone and our culture.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the comments. I just love what you said. Several comments up (July 22nd post by "a concerned friend") someone said, "it is our job to declare the righteous judgments of God." I countered that they needed to show me some Scripture that teaches that. I think your comments are very helpful to the discussion. Thanks for writing them and sharing them. If there's more you want to talk about, please write in.

[A Guy]

I really have to disagree with you here. I spent several years of my life struggling with same-sex attraction. I have seen it first hand.

I have had some friends who are nonbelievers who consider themselves to be "gay", but I have rarely told them about my past. I would not want to have people living the gay lifestyle to be my inner circle, because that would not be healthy.

When it comes to nonbelievers, we acknowledge that they are not Christians. Whether someone is an alcoholic, a drug dealer, or someone who yells at their mother, or someone living a gay lifestyle, they are nonbelievers, so we do not place the same expectations on them that we place on ourselves.

The Bible has a completely different standard as to how we deal with believers.

1 Corinthians 5:11 New International Version
"But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people."


When it comes to a believer living in sexual sin, this business of "it's not on me to judge" that people have is nonsense, because God already gave His judgement, but it is on us not to ignore it.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for writing. These are such difficult issues. Whether or not, as a Christian, you choose to have non-believing gay friends in your inner circle is something only you can evaluate. We are to be witnesses to all, and not discriminate, but we're also not to put ourselves in spiritually compromising situations and relationships. So if being in those circles is a spiritual obstacle for you, then by all means stay away.

I also agree with you that it's not our place to judge those outside of the church. 1 Cor. 5.12 says that directly. I agree that we're not to place the same expectations on them, so we agree with each other there.

Also in 1 Cor. 5.12 it tells us that it IS our responsibility to judge those inside the church. The congregation of God's people is supposed to weigh the evidence and come to decisions about moral things, exercising spiritual discipline over the professing believers in the church. It is our business as a local church to preserve moral purity in our midst and to defend the reputation of our Lord. In the particular event of sexual immorality, we as an assembly have an obligation to execute judgment upon the offender with the motive of restoring him or her.

I think it's pretty safe to say that they church doesn't practice 1 Cor. 5.12. I have yet to see spiritual discipline of a greedy person, young people who are sexually active, or people with a drinking problem. That certainly doesn't justify that we ignore homosexual sin, but I guess the church needs a call to obedience and consistency. It's certainly not fair to single out homosexuals and ignore other, more "socially acceptable" sins.

Don't get me wrong (and possibly you have). I believe homosexuality is sin. The Bible is unavoidably clear. But also, on the basis of my study, every indicator is that some practices of homosexuality today aren't at all like the things the Bible is talking about. I'm just not sure what to make of it. In the days of the Bible, people never talked about homosexual orientation. Homosexuality in the ancient world was an abusive relationship of sexual predation, power, and status. Granted, it's very possible that much homosexuality today is also that. But not all. I was a youth pastor for many years. When a little 11-year-old boy comes to me to tell me he likes boys better than girls, he's not being rebellious against God, idolatrous, or succumbing to peer pressure. He's telling me the truth about what he thinks about himself. That's where I think it's not my place to judge, but instead to converse, teach, admonish, correct, love, and do everything possible to honor God.

The word "sexual immorality" in 1 Cor. 5.12 is porneia. It's primarily a term of prostitution. Our modern definition of fornication is all consensual extramarital sex, but that's not what Paul is talking about. Porneia meant sex bought by the act and with no further obligation.

As I said, these are very difficult matters. We need to be careful never to succumb to cultural expediency or compromise because of societal pressure. We need also to be careful to walk the fine line between not judging each other (Mt. 7.1) and judging each other (1 Cor. 5.12). The judging of Matthew 7 is more that of having a critical spirit, while the judging of 1 Cor. 5 is that of moral discipline. Every day we need to pray that God helps us to know the difference.

Talk to me some more if you want. I'm certainly willing to dig into it more deeply.