This post will explore the human sexual behaviors and attitudes which underpin the Biblical perspective (both Old and New Testament) on what is considered right and wrong - acceptable and unacceptable. After all, if one is truly interested in applying Biblical proscriptions of certain behaviors in the present, he/she must understand the context and motivations which underpin them. Unfortunately, too many folks have sought to impose the context of their own times, experiences, and understandings on the writings of authors who belonged to wholly different times, experiences and understandings. In other words, one must have some understanding of Hebrew and Roman sexual attitudes to truly understand the sexual perspectives of the Old and New Testaments of the Judeo-Christian canon.
First, in terms of the Hebrew Scriptures, it is important that we understand that Torah was premised on two foundational principles: love for God and love for neighbor (Leviticus 19:18, Deuteronomy 11:13, and 13:3). More particularly, as it related to loving one's neighbor, Torah prohibits behaviors that would hurt/harm or disrespect another's person, property, or rights in any way. In other words, the commandments of Torah were NOT an arbitrary collection of dos and don'ts based on the whim of Divine prerogative. Instead, Torah law was motivated by an underlying rationale/logic that was meant to protect the person, property, and rights of folks within Israelite society.
In this connection, it is also important to understand that Torah was designed for a society/culture which was primitive, agrarian, paternalistic, polygamous, and embraced violence and slavery. Hence, one who ignores or denies these premises of Israelite society is bound to misunderstand and/or misinterpret Torah Law. In other words, Torah Law was designed to meet the Israelites where they were - to fit the circumstances and conditions of their existence. As I have related in previous posts on this topic, the commandments of Torah are a special iteration or application of God's Law of Love tailored to meet the needs of a particular people, in a particular time and place.
Finally, from the Christian perspective, EVERYTHING in Torah is seen as pointing to Jesus of Nazareth. For Christians, all of the provisions of Torah must be interpreted/understood within the context of the Christ event! Indeed, the understanding that Jesus Christ came to this earth to fulfill Torah and the writings of the Hebrew prophets is foundational to Christian theology! Hence, a Christian understands that the commandments of Torah are NOT the ultimate expression of Divine Law - that they do NOT represent an eternal and/or universal iteration of God's Law! In other words, from the New Testament perspective, the 613 commandments of Torah were/are NOT applicable to the Gentile peoples of the world. In short, the gospel accounts of Christ's teaching and the epistles of Paul and John make very clear that the Christian standard is the Law of Love (see Matthew 22:34-40, John 13:34, 15:12, 17, Romans 13:8, I Corinthians 13, I John 3:11, 23, 4:7, 11-12).
We see the two great love commandments clearly embodied in the Ten Commandments of Torah (Exodus 20:1-17). In them, love for God is defined by: not putting anything/anyone before God, not imagining God in a form which fails to truly define or encompass him, not being careless or disrespectful about how we talk about God, and remembering to rest from our works just as God rested from his. Likewise, love for neighbor is defined by the Ten Commandments as: honoring one's parents, not murdering anyone, not being unfaithful to another, not stealing from each other, not lying to or about each other, and not desiring/wanting what belongs to another. Moreover, in ALL of these commandments we can clearly discern the harm/hurt/disrespect that would accrue to anyone (God or human) impacted by such behaviors. In those last six commandments, we can also discern the philosophical basis for ALL of the other Torah commandments which specifically deal with human sexual behaviors.
More particularly, we see in these commandments a clear impulse to protect the property and feelings of humans (especially males). In most of the prohibited sexual behaviors enumerated in Torah, the principles are readily apparent. Indeed, most of us don't have any problem in seeing how things like bestiality, incest, rape, or infidelity might inflict real psychological and/or physical hurt and harm on ourselves and/or others. Even so, it has been hard for many of us to discern any hurt or harm that might be caused by a sexual relationship between two consenting adults of the same gender. Hence, the question has naturally arisen: Have we properly understood/interpreted the passages of Scripture which have traditionally been identified as prohibiting all same-gender sexual relationships?
In attempting to answer that question, we must immediately dispense with the notion that our current knowledge of (and perspective regarding) human sexuality can or should be projected on to Scripture. As has already been suggested, the Hebrew people of biblical times were part of a society/culture that was very paternalistic in its outlook and character. As a consequence, many of the commandments of Torah are premised on protecting the rights, privileges, and property of its male members. Indeed, religious scholar Christopher Rollston once observed that "The Decalogue is a case in point. 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house, you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male slave, his female slave, his ox, his donkey or anything which belongs to your neighbor' (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21). Because the Ten Commandments are so well known, it's quite easy to miss the assumptions in them about gender. But the marginalization of women is clear. The wife is classified as her husband's property, and so she's listed with the slaves and work-animals. There's also a striking omission in this commandment: never does it say 'You shall not covet your neighbor's husband.' The Ten Commandments were written to men, not women. There's even more evidence, linguistic in nature. Hebrew has four distinct forms of the word 'you' and these are gender and number specific. The form of 'you' in every single commandment is masculine singular. The text assumes its readers are men." (See Huffington Post: The Marginalization of Women, 2012)
While Rollston's observations may not have been popular in more traditional circles, it cannot be denied that they accurately reflect the reality found in Torah. In the eighteenth chapter of the book of Leviticus, we read: "You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the Lord. None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, brought up in your father's family, since she is your sister. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's relative. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's relative. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother's nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are relatives; it is depravity. And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive." (Verses 5-18, ESV) Hence, although this passage mentions women, it is clearly addressed to males! We can also see that the honor of the male is paramount - his nakedness must not be uncovered and his property must be protected. Even so, we can also see the underpinnings of the Law of Love at work in this passage - the instructions were clearly given in the interest of promoting familial harmony.
Of course, students of the Bible will immediately recognize the context of the passage offered above. It introduces one of the principal "clobber passages" used by religious folks to condemn all homosexual behaviors. Continuing in the chapter, we read: "You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor's wife and so make yourself unclean with her. You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion." (Leviticus 18:19-23, ESV)
For those who may not be familiar with the ancient world, the wording of the key passage removed from its context may appear awkward and confusing (the practice of citing a prooftext often results in such awkwardness and confusion). Notice that the injunction is to "not lie with a male" (have sexual intercourse) in the same way or manner that a male would do so with a female. Why? Because men were perceived as the active agent in a sexual relationship (the penetrator), while women were perceived as occupying the passive role in intercourse (the one being penetrated). Indeed, Torah makes very clear that a man who had intercourse with a woman was perceived as having "humbled" her (Deuteronomy 21:14, 22:24, 29). Hence, the notion of a man in a passive role contradicted the whole notion of patriarchy.
We also notice in this passage several references to behaviors that make one "unclean." Indeed, in the concluding remarks for this entire passage, we read: "Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants...For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people. So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God." (Leviticus 18:24-30, ESV) In this connection, it is interesting to note that Jesus is portrayed throughout the gospels and in the book of Acts as making clean that which was formerly regarded as unclean.
Finally, this passage in Leviticus emphasized the fact that the children of Israel were NOT to practice any of the "abominable customs" of the people who inhabited the land prior to their occupancy of it. In terms of context, it is essential to a proper understanding of both "clobber passages" (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) that we remember that the former inhabitants of the Promised Land were polytheistic pagans who incorporated ritual sexual intercourse with both genders into the worship of their deities. The Reverend Brandon Robertson noted in his An Inclusive Interpretation of Biblical 'Clobber Passages' that "Both of these condemnations of same-sex sexual behavior in Leviticus are directly preceded by reminders that these rules were meant to keep the Jewish people from being like the surrounding dominant polytheistic cultures. These cultures often practiced ritual sex offered to a variety of deities and engaged in practices such as using conquered people as sexual slaves. This makes it clear that the cultural context of the Leviticus passage does not reference loving, consensual same-sex relationships, but relationships rooted in idolatry or exploitation, both of which should be rightly condemned. The word abomination used in Leviticus 18:22 further proves this contextual understanding, because the Hebrew word toevah refers to a ritual uncleanness rather than something objectively, morally wrong."
Like the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus, the entire twentieth chapter of the same book makes very clear that the Israelites were expected to differentiate themselves from the religious practices of the former inhabitants of the land which they were shortly to inherit. In the beginning of the chapter, the practice of sacrificing children to Molech is condemned (Leviticus 20:1-5). This is followed by a condemnation of those who would consult mediums and necromancers (Leviticus 20:6-8). Then, in the listing of prohibited sexual practices, we find that the prohibition against men having intercourse with other men is included among the prohibitions against incestuous and menstrual intercourse (Leviticus 20:10-21). In other words, this is a reiteration of the practices forbidden in the eighteenth chapter. Likewise, as in the previous chapter, the thought concluded with: "You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them, that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them." (Leviticus 20:22-23, ESV)
Thus, we have seen that it would be a gross misinterpretation of Scripture to impose our modern notion of homosexuality on these passages from Leviticus. Clearly, the prohibitions related to same-gender sexual intercourse were directed at the pagan, polytheistic practices of the people whom the Israelites were expected to replace in the Promised Land. They were also clearly intended to protect Hebrew notions of patriarchy and property. In other words, we simply cannot read into these passages our modern understandings of sexual orientation or our notions regarding loving intercourse between two consenting adults.
Moreover, just as we must understand the context of Hebrew society/culture and their circumstances to properly interpret the meanings of these passages from Torah, we must likewise understand the context of sex in the Roman world to properly interpret what the Apostle Paul had to say on these topics. In addition to this, we must not forget that the Apostle Paul was himself a Jew - who was thoroughly versed in the Hebrew perspective on these matters (Philippians 3:5-6).
In his article Love, Sex and Marriage in Ancient Rome for Psychology Today, Dr. Neel Burton underscored the fact that Roman society was also very paternalistic in nature. In short, women were generally viewed as occupying a secondary or inferior role to men. He went on to note that phallic symbols were held in high esteem within that culture. Like the other pagans before them, Burton pointed out that the Roman world incorporated ritual intercourse into their religious practices.
As for Roman sexual attitudes more generally, Burton observed that "Most extramarital and same-sex activity took place with slaves and prostitutes. Slaves were considered as property and lacked the legal standing that protected a citizen’s body. A freeman who forced a slave into having sex could not be charged with rape, but only under laws relating to property damage, and then only at the instigation of the slave’s owner. Prostitution was both legal and common, and often operated out of brothels or the fornices (arcade dens) under the arches of a circus. Most prostitutes were slaves or freedwomen. A freeborn person who fell into prostitution suffered infamia, that is, loss of respect or reputation, and became an infamis, losing her or his social and legal standing. Other groups that incurred infamia—a concept that still retains some currency in the Roman Catholic Church—included actors, dancers, gladiators, and other entertainers, which is why Roman women were forbidden from being seen on stage. Members of these groups, which had in common the pleasuring of others, could be subjected to violence and even killed with relative impunity. A freeborn man’s libertas, or political liberty, manifested itself, among others, in the mastery of his own body, and his adoption of a passive or submissive sexual position implied servility and a loss of virility."
In this connection, Burton continued: "Homosexual behavior among soldiers not only violated the decorum against sexual intercourse among freeborn men, but also compromised the penetrated soldier’s sexual and therefore military dominance, with rape and penetration the symbols, and sometimes also the harsh realities, of military defeat. According to the historian Polybius (d. c. 125 BCE), the penalty for a soldier who had allowed himself to be penetrated was fustuarium, that is, cudgelling to death, the same punishment as for desertion. By some twisted Roman logic, a man who was anally penetrated was seen to take on the role of a woman, but a woman who was anally penetrated was seen to take on the role of a boy." Hence, we are forced to conclude that the societal/cultural climate in which Paul penned his remarks about same-sex behavior featured many of the same notions which surrounded those "clobber passages" found in Torah.
Indeed, in referencing the "clobber passages" attributed to the Apostle Paul, Reverend Brandon Robinson wrote of Romans 1:26-27 that "St. Paul describes the descent of the Roman culture into pagan idolatry. He begins by saying that the Roman people once knew the true and living God, and then turn to pagan idolatry, which lead them down a path of grave immorality. St. Paul is writing to a specific people in a specific context. After all, not all of humanity has followed the same trajectory Paul outlines – it was unique to the Greco-Roman context and culture. Same-sex sexual relations were fairly common in the Greco-Roman world that Paul lived in, and most of the expressions of homosexual sex were linked to various forms of pagan worship, prostitution, abuse of slaves, or pederasty. All of these are linked to exploitation and pagan idolatry and never to loving, consensual, same-sex relationships." (See An Inclusive Interpretation of Biblical "Clobber Passages")
Likewise, in his remarks about I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:9-10, Reverend Robinson wrote: "The words Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9 which is mistranslated as 'male prostitutes' and 'sodomites' are the Greek terms malakoi and aresenakoiti. The word 'arsenekoiti' literally translates as 'man bed' and most scholars agree that this again likely refers to some form of ritual rape or temple prostitution. It is unlikely, contextually, to assume that it referred to 'homosexuality' as the committed sexual relationship between two consenting partners of the same sex. This word also did not exist in the Greek language until Paul created it in this text. If Paul was explicitly seeking to condemn homosexual relationships in any of his writings, he could have used one of the over twenty more common Greek words for same-sex relationships and behaviors that his readers would have immediately understood." He continued: "In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and in 1 Timothy 1:10, St. Paul uses the word malakoi, which is a common Greek word which translates in modern vernacular as 'effeminate men' or 'boys'. In the ancient Greco-Roman world in particular anything considered effeminate was thought to be weak and undesirable. In the Greco-Roman culture would have seen any man who allowed himself to be penetrated sexually by another man to be willfully giving up his masculinity, thus making himself 'malakos', which would have been a reason for him to be marginalized in a Patriarchal culture. There is virtually no debate among scholars that malakoi in St. Paul’s letters simply meant 'effeminate man' and likely did not refer to consensual same-sex sexual relationships."
Hence, if we are truly interested in understanding the Biblical perspective on sinful sexual behaviors, we must understand the context of the Biblical references to such behaviors. To impose our own modern notions and understandings on those ancient writings is unfair and will only ensure misunderstanding/misinterpretation of what was written. Unfortunately, too many Christians are NOT interested in nuance and complexity - they prefer simplicity and the clarity provided by black and white thinking. They would rather twist passages from Torah and make them binding on folks who were not "fortunate" enough to be born with a "normal" heterosexual orientation. They ignore Christ's statements about judging other people's sins while ignoring their own. In their cherry picking of Scripture, they also ignore a great many other relevant things that Jesus and his apostles had to say on the topic of human sexuality.
We have already pointed out that Christ fulfilled the commandments of Torah and summarized them into two great commandments that would be universally applicable - to both Jews and Gentiles. Those commandments were based on the eternal and Godly principle of LOVE. Jesus went on to say that love was the motivation and objective which underpinned the entire Law of God. Hence, if two men or two women really love each other (exhibiting the things which characterize Godly love - see I Corinthians 13:4-7), their relationship CANNOT be characterized as sinful! In the words of Paul, "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." (Romans 13:10, ESV)
Hence, in this iteration of God's Law, only sexual behaviors which inflict real hurt or harm on someone can be classified as sinful. Moreover, failing to uphold patriarchy or culturally acceptable gender roles does NOT constitute a legitimate hurt or harm. In the words of the Apostle Paul, "in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:26-28, ESV) In short, a consensual monogamous relationship between two adults with a homosexual orientation is NOT the moral equivalent of incest, pedophilia, rape, ritual prostitution, or sexual exploitation.
Now, certainly, a homosexual is just as capable of sin as any heterosexual person. A homosexual can permit anger, bitterness, and vengeance to consume them and inflict violence on themselves or others. A homosexual is obviously quite capable of being unfaithful to his/her sexual partner. A homosexual is also quite capable of being unkind, impatient, unforgiving, etc. Like their heterosexual counterparts, homosexuals are subject to arrogance, rudeness, and unwarranted irritability. In short, it is my contention that a homosexual Christian is subject to the same Divine standard as the heterosexual Christian. What do you think?
You wrote, “Hence, in this iteration of God’s Law, only sexual behaviors which inflict real hurt or harm on someone can be classified as sinful…. In short, a consensual monogamous relationship between two adults with a homosexual orientation is NOT the moral equivalent of incest, pedophilia, rape, ritual prostitution, or sexual exploitation.”
ReplyDeleteIf it is true that “only sexual behaviors which inflict real hurt or harm on someone can be classified as sinful,” would you say that a consensual sexual relationship between an adult man and his widowed mother should not be classified as sinful? If you would argue that such a relationship is sinful, in what way is “real hurt or harm” inflicted? I once read of a woman who claimed she and her father were in such a relationship and were happily committed to the happiness and well-being of each other. Do you think such a consensual father-daughter sexual relationship is sinful? If you do, then wouldn’t you agree that your criterion for determining whether or not a sexual behavior is sinful is in need of revision/expansion?
The list of sexual sins in Leviticus 18 includes incest, bestiality, adultery, and homosexual behavior. These practices are IN THEMSELVES considered sinful, irrespective of their connection to idolatry or of whether they are forced or consensual. Yes, these practices were definitely related to the worship of “gods” made in the images of various beasts, reptiles, birds, and other creatures, but what this means, as Paul points out in Romans 1, is that replacing the worship of the Creator with the worship of the creature results in all kinds of other corruptions, including serious departure from what the Creator intended for human sexual relationships. Abandoning or corrupting the worship of the Creator results in abandoning and corrupting the Creator’s standards for human relationships.
This is not to say that everyone who discovers he or she is same-sex attracted is so oriented because of abandoning God; I'm simply saying that in the ancient world abandonment of God led to embracing all kinds of activities that were (and are), in themselves, contrary to the will of God.
Vance Stinson
Vance,
DeleteThank you for reading the post and taking the time to respond. I would say that even consensual incest will necessarily inflict psychological harm on those who indulge in it. Likewise, it is inevitable that such a relationship would inflict real emotional hurt and harm on other family members. Incest also presents the possibility of inflicting both physical and mental harm on any offspring that might be a consequence of such a union.
The premise of my post is that the list of sexual sins in Leviticus 18 does not make all homosexual behavior a sin. When this passage of Torah was written, folks did not understand the concept of sexual orientation, and same-sex behavior was associated with polytheistic sexual rituals, exploitation of slaves, humiliation, and pederasty. The concept of two men or two women living together openly in a loving and committed relationship would have been wholly unfamiliar to those folks (as it would have been to most U.S. Christians just fifty years ago).
I do not believe that Scripture supports your contention that homosexuality is inherently evil. In Judeo-Christian theology, morality has always been presented as a choice between good and evil. Once again, even the Torah iteration of God's Law was NOT arbitrary. To be sinful or evil, the behavior had to cause hurt/harm. Moreover, if one's nature is inclined to find members of one's own gender sexually attractive, how can you characterize that as sinful? Where is the necessary choice? When did you decide that females were more attractive than males?
It is a great irony that the ACOGs have easily accepted the fact that traditional Christians are wrong about the nature of God, the gospel, holiday observances, the afterlife, etc., but they have swallowed the traditional Christian sexual attitudes hook, line, and sinker. If Satan has successfully deceived these folks about so many things, why do the ACOGs reject the notion that he could have deceived humans about their own bodies and sexuality?
I agree that incest causes the kinds of harms you mention, and I would suggest that a person entering into such a relationship demonstrates he or she already has mental issues that need to be addressed.
DeleteSimilarly, I would argue that homosexual activity inflicts psychological harm (and possible physical harm, particularly for males who engage in anal penetration) on those who indulge in it, that same-sex attraction itself is disordered, and that to indulge in activity that reinforces or "feeds" the disorder cannot be healthy. That was once the position of the psychiatric community, and I would argue that the change-of-mind about homosexuality was due to influences other than "advancements in science."
You wrote, "Moreover, if one's nature is inclined to find members of one's own gender sexually attractive, how can you characterize that as sinful?" I don't. I characterize it as disordered. As I have told you before, I am aware that most same-sex attracted people did not ask to be that way, but the same can be said about many conditions, including sexual attraction (by adults) to children and all kinds of bizarre fetishes. I have talked with people who have these disorders, and they HATE having them! These unwanted predilections are a part of human fallenness, but it should be understood that sinfulness arises only when those internal urges/feelings are acted on.
Leviticus 18:22 is not restricted to exploitation of slaves, humiliation, and pederasty. It includes consensual homosexual activity, as 20:13 makes clear: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, BOTH OF THEM have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." A helpless rape victim has not committed even a minor sin, let alone an abomination that calls for the death sentence.
TO BE CONTINUED
---CONTINUED
DeleteHomosexual behavior in all its forms---regardless the presence or absence of "love," "commitment," all that stuff---is sinful because it is contrary to God's design. The sinfulness of homosexual activity is affirmed in both the OT and the NT. Paul's statements on it in Romans 1 are consistent with the Torah. And, by the way, Paul, being a well-educated man, must have known that same-sex unions had a semi-legal status within certain areas of the Roman world, and it wasn't always associated with polytheistic rituals. It's hard to imagine that he knew nothing about sexual orientation, especially since he taught on the fallenness of humankind (and internal struggles associated with it) more than any other NT writer. "Wretched man that I am," he writes. "Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (Rom 7:24).
It is NOT a "great irony" that the "ACOGs" agree with historic Christianity on this issue. First, it's clearly the biblical view. Second, we agree with traditional Christianity on a whole host of important issues. I grew up a Methodist and recited the Apostle's Creed every Sunday. I still believe it---ALL of it (at least the form of it the Methodist Church used). So do the other COG groups. We also believe in the the preexistence and deity of Jesus Christ, His virginal conception and birth, His crucifixion, death, resurrection, and ascension. We believe He died for the sins of the world; that He is our Lord, Savior, Advocate, and High Priest; that He will come again; that the dead will be raised; and that the people of God will inherit eternal life. Like Catholics, the Orthodox, Wesleyans, and most Reformed believers, we believe in the ongoing validity of the Ten Commandments and their relationship to the two great commandments on loving God and neighbor. My expositions on the Sermon on the Mount are remarkably consistent with expositions by Catholic and Reformed commentators. And I could go on and on, but this is enough to make the point that there is no "great irony" with our NOT rejecting traditional Christian sexual attitudes.
Robert A.J. Gagnon has devoted many years of research, writing, and lecturing on this subject. I recommend that you acquire his books, essays, etc., as he addresses all the arguments of the people whose works you have been relying on. My hope is that you will recognize that the views you have embraced are not supported by Scripture, that all homosexual activity is sinful in the eyes of God, and that a very destructive evil is behind the modern LGBTQ agenda.
Sincerely,
Vance
Vance,
DeleteOnce again, I appreciate your decision to engage here on this topic in a serious and civil manner. As always, you articulate your thinking and theology on this subject with skill and logic. As you might have guessed, however, I do find fault with your reasoning and interpretations of the relevant Scriptures.
I'd like to recommend for your perusal a couple of articles:
When Homosexuality Stopped Being a Mental Disorder -
Not until 1987 did homosexuality completely fall out of the DSM by Dr. Neel Burton for "Psychology Today" (2023)
We read there: "First published in 1968, DSM-II (the second edition of the American classification of mental disorders, and a forerunner of DSM-5) still listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In this, the DSM followed in a long tradition in medicine and psychiatry, which in the nineteenth century appropriated homosexuality from the Church and, in what must have seemed like an élan of enlightenment, promoted it from sin to mental disorder.
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) asked all members attending its convention to vote on whether they believed homosexuality to be a mental disorder. 5,854 psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and 3,810 to retain it.
The APA then compromised, removing homosexuality from the DSM but replacing it, in effect, with "sexual orientation disturbance" for people "in conflict with" their sexual orientation. Not until 1987 did homosexuality completely fall out of the DSM.
Continued below
“Gay Is Good”: History of Homosexuality in the DSM and Modern Psychiatry by Dr. Sara McHenry for "The American Journal of Psychology"
DeleteWe read there:
In 1952, the American Psychiatry Association (APA) Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics developed the first version of the DSM, which served as the first manual of mental health focused on clinical diagnoses and care and provided a glossary and description of psychiatric illnesses (3). The category of sociopathic personality disturbance included subcategories, such as antisocial reaction, sexual deviation, and addiction. Sexual deviation included different types of behavior classified as pathologic, including “homosexuality, transvestism, pedophilia, fetishism, and sexual sadism including rape, sexual assault, mutilation” (1). Given the current societal acceptance of homosexuality in many countries—and while it may be difficult to imagine today that homosexuality truly fits into “pathologic behavior”—it is important to understand that inclusion of homosexuality in the DSM served to move same-sex sexual behavior from being regarded as a moral sin and into the secular world of medicine by recognizing it not as a sin but instead as a disorder (4). Placed within the context of mental health, this formed the foundation for future study of homosexuality by clinicians and for a modern-day understanding of health disparities faced by persons from sexual minority groups.
Psychiatry’s views on homosexuality today are vastly different than they were 70 years ago. Today, Dr. Anonymous, now identified as Dr. John Fryer, is honored with an APA annual award given in his name to an individual who has contributed to the mental health of sexual minority communities. Professional organizations, such as the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists and the APA’s caucus of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, exist to help support psychiatrists from sexual minority groups and care for patients from sexual minority groups. Journals are devoted to the study of other mental health conditions in sexual minority populations and how the field of psychiatry can best address the disparities that exist (12). Some of these disparities include increased rates of depression, anxiety, substance use, and suicidality, compared with heterosexual peers. In fact, suicide attempts are around three to five times higher for individuals from sexual minority groups than for their heterosexual counterparts (13). Persons from sexual minority groups continue to have decreased access to mental health services and experience stigma and bias when able to obtain these services (14). Despite advancements that have been made, there is obviously still much work to be done in this population.
In the Bing AI query of scientific studies of homosexuality, we read:
DeleteThere have been many scientific studies conducted on homosexuality. One such study analyzed the genomes of nearly half a million men and women and found that although genetics are certainly involved in who people choose to have sex with, there are no specific genetic predictors 1. Another study identified genetic patterns that could be associated with homosexual behavior and showed how these might also help people to find different-sex mates and reproduce 2. It is important to note that while some people believe that homosexual activity is unnatural, scientific research shows that homosexuality is a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects 3.
Hence, it is misleading to suggest that the change which has occurred among mental health professionals with regard to their thinking on homosexuality was not scientific or the result of greater awareness of the issue.
Continued below
In your comments, you also contended that the prohibitions regarding same-sex behavior in Leviticus include consensual, loving relationships. In this regard, you stated: "It includes consensual homosexual activity, as 20:13 makes clear: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, BOTH OF THEM have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
DeleteThe only thing that Leviticus 20:13 makes clear is that both of the participants in the behavior referenced were to be put to death. A prostitute consents to the transaction and is seen as sharing culpability with his/her customers. Could a slave or a child be said to have truly given their consent to a homosexual relationship because of the obvious disparity in power?
If we continue in the passage, we read: "15 If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Are you suggesting that the cognitively inferior animal gave its consent to the intercourse? Was the animal being exploited by these humans? OR Did the animal share culpability for what had happened?
Likewise, a little further in the same passage, we read: "18 If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people." Is a woman having her period sinful? The menstrual cycle is a normal part of being a human female, yet Torah classifies a woman in that condition as being "unclean."
Hence, it would seem to me that describing Leviticus 20:13 as proving that this prohibition included consensual same-sex intercourse presents some obvious logical inconsistencies.
continued below
In your remarks, you stated that: "Homosexual behavior in all its forms---regardless the presence or absence of "love," "commitment," all that stuff---is sinful because it is contrary to God's design." So, are you suggesting that homosexuals are subjected by God to a different standard from the one heterosexuals were given? Because it seems to me that the presence or absence of love and commitment is critical to those standards! Isn't it? And, how is homosexuality contrary to God's design if the phenomenon occurs in the natural world which I assume that we all believe God created? If I had no choice in my sexual orientation - If it is part of my nature to be attracted to members of my own gender, what is the justification (morally and/or logically) for calling that sinful? Didn't Paul say that it was a sin to go against one's own nature or conscience? Are you saying that God judges all of us based on a heterosexual's nature?
DeleteFinally, I'm sorry. I still see the ACOG's agreement with traditional Christian attitudes towards human sexuality as ironic. The ACOG's teach that Satan has deceived the whole world (except them) about just about everything related to religion. Yet, you expect us to believe that Satan was completely unsuccessful or uninterested in twisting the Church's understanding of human sexuality? Isn't that part of what happened in the Garden of Eden according to Scripture? What made Adam and Eve conscious of their nakedness? What caused them to be ashamed of their bodies? Did Satan play any role in that?
Anyway, I do appreciate your input, and invite you to respond to what I've written in these answers to your comments.
Yes, I'm fully aware that human behavioral scientists have conducted many studies on homosexuality, but the process of removing its classification as a disorder did not happen apart from the work of some aggressive activists. The medical community is not immune to political pressures. But, more importantly, what's driving the LGBTQ movement today is not advancements in scientific knowledge; nor is it simply "persecuted people struggling for their rights." It's an in-your-face demand, not merely to be accepted as fellow human beings, but that we all CELEBRATE homosexuality, transgenderism, etc. And, once again, we find people within the medical community caving to the demands.
DeleteAnimals are not humans, so the killing of an animal that someone has had sex with has nothing to do with the DEATH SENTENCE for a human. The killing of the animal is not done as punishment to the animal; it's a message to humans on how abominable a crime this is. You write, "The only thing that Leviticus 20:13 makes clear is that both of the participants in the behavior referenced were to be put to death." That's simply not true. It also makes clear that "BOTH of them have committed an abomination." The text presupposes a consensual relationship. Is a woman having her period sinful? What? Of course not! (She is CEREMONIALLY "unclean," but not morally impure.) You are missing my point entirely. A woman having her period is not sinful, but she is forbidden from having sex during that time. She is "cut off from her people," along with the man having sex with her, because she has consented to the act. That's the situation the passage presupposes.
When Paul talks about "nature," he is not talking about innate desires that we discover at some point (or may have been born with); he is echoing the creation account---the male-female design of creation. And that's what I was referring to in a sermon you took issue with some time ago.
Satan clearly HAS deceived the world regarding human sexuality. Look at the abominable sexual behaviors of the land of Canaan (Leviticus 18). Consider what history tells us about sexual practices in Egypt, among the Greeks, and in the Roman world. Look at what's going on today with the abominable LGBTQ movement, as rainbow flags are waved in schools, on public properties, even at the White House. Even mainstream churches are caving to it. I see what it is doing to the Methodist Church I was once a part of, of what it has done to Anglicanism, and of how one mainstream denomination after another has taken up the practice of "blessing" same-sex unions and even ordaining practicing homosexuals to the ministry. And now, it's even creeping into the Catholic Church. Satan's work of deception did not end in the fourth century; it was going on before that time, and it goes on today. We see manifestations of it all across history, and I submit that the modern world's rushing to embrace the LGBTQ agenda (and accuse everyone who doesn't of being bigoted "homophobes") is a part of the Devil's work of deceiving the nations.
---TO BE CONTINUED---
Vance
---CONTINUED from previous post---
DeleteYou wrote, "So, are you suggesting that homosexuals are subjected by God to a different standard from the one heterosexuals were given? Because it seems to me that the presence or absence of love and commitment is critical to those standards! Isn't it?" I'm saying that the God-ordained institution of marriage is restricted to the male-female union. A male-male or female-female union is not, by the order established by God at creation (hence, "natural order"), a marriage. Love and commitment in a relationship God condemns does not legitimize that relationship. The person who discovers he is same-sex attracted has a great burden to bear, and it may seem terribly unfair that he or she can never lawfully experience the same fulfillment in love, commitment, and sexual expression that his or her heterosexual friends can experience, but that's a truth that must be accepted if the person is a follower of Christ.
You may have noticed that, while the LGBTQ movement has made some minor inroads into the more conservative Evangelical community, it's main advocates in the world of Christendom are the mainline churches; and, interestingly, many of the leaders of these churches are also progressively moving away from traditional orthodoxy. Some deny the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and other doctrines historically considered essential. So, yes, I think the Devil has been, and continues to be, active. In fact, before the end (and I'm not suggesting we're there yet), the restraining powers will be ordered to stand down so that lawlessness (along with the revelation of the final "man of lawlessness") may emerge full bloom.
I mentioned Robert A.J. Gagnon in my last post. I've followed his lectures, debates, essays, etc., for many years. He is Professor of New Testament Theology at Houston Baptist University, and he is the "best of the best" on this topic. The video linked below is one of his lectures on the subject. I would like for you to watch it from beginning to end (it's a bit lengthy). He covers several of the claims commonly made about what Paul knew, attitudes about homosexuality in antiquity, etc., and compares all this with biblical statements on the subject. He ends his presentation with some excellent pastoral advice. I hope you'll watch it all as you have time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qRlyROlV4w
Sincerely,
Vance
Vance,
DeleteOnce again, thank you for your willingness to engage on this topic. As you know, all scientific research is subject to peer review - this kind of peer pressure is part of the very structure of how research is conducted within that community. Moreover, the point you are making about the medical profession not being immune to political pressure is true in both directions. There have always been and are currently plenty of folks lobbying against LGBTQ behaviors and reproductive rights based on religious views - arguments not based on scientific observations of physiological or psychological phenomena.
As for the LGBTQ community, I would say that it is dangerous to generalize about any group. There is a great deal of diversity within that community, and different folks are motivated by different things and have different objectives in mind. If there are any valid generalizations to be made, I would say that most LGBTQ folks desire to be accepted as humans and to be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges which are afforded to other folks. For me, the LGBTQ movement is part of a much larger movement which has sought to eradicate systemic prejudice and mistreatment of minority communities within the larger society. And, yes, part of that understandably includes a rejection of shame and mistreatment and an assertion of pride in oneself and the community to which they belong.
If you are not worthy of the moniker "homophobe," than why does a rainbow flag on the White House seem to threaten you? As for the Methodist Church, I seem to recall that they were divided once before over the issue of slavery. Indeed, that issue divided many denominations in the 19th Century. Also, please explain to me exactly how the blessing of a same-sex union infringes on your beliefs about marriage or the institution of heterosexual marriage more generally?
continued...
I am also not as impressed with the arguments of Mr. Gagnon as you appear to be. I find his explanation of the Genesis account of man's creation to be confusing and contradictory. He seems to acknowledge that humankind is different from animal kind, and he even mentioned in his remarks that none of the animals which God presented to Adam were found to be a suitable partner/companion for him. Hence, before the issue of gender is even introduced in the second chapter, we find an emphasis on "kinds" (echoing what we find in the first chapter of Genesis). Moreover, the passage makes very clear that the whole issue which inspired the presentation of the animals and the creation of another human was that it wasn't good for the man to be alone. Also, in the first chapter, we are told that God created humans to be both male and female. In other words, both genders reflect God's likeness (although, I don't think that anyone has made the claim that God has the genitalia of either sex). Ganon likes to emphasize gender, but I believe that the passage emphasizes the fact that humankind needs the companionship of humankind.
DeleteAs with the animals, gender is clearly tied to procreation/reproduction in the Genesis account. However, the context also suggests that marriage is NOT just about procreation - that there is also this important element of companionship. As you know, there have always been a great many heterosexual unions which have not produced any offspring (for various reasons). Yet, I haven't heard anyone suggest that such marriages are somehow less important or valuable than the ones which are blessed with children.
Once again, for me, Mr. Gagnon's obsession with gender is NOT justified by the text in Genesis. I believe that the narrative clearly identifies the shared humanity of the pair as the important factor in making them one. After all, as Gagnon pointed out in his remarks, Adam did say that this other creature whom God had created to be his companion was now bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh. We are told that this companion was taken out of or from man - made of the stuff that he was made out of/from!
Once again, for Gagnon gender is the preeminent component of what makes the couple complimentary to each other, not their shared humanity. He seems to completely ignore or dismiss the fact that we are all unique individuals with different personalities, abilities, strengths, weaknesses, interests, etc. There have been man males down through the centuries of human history who have been very kind, compassionate, and nurturing (traits normally associated with the female gender). Likewise, human history is replete with examples of strong, ruthless, and aggressive females (traits normally associated with the male gender). In other words, I don't believe that it is too far-fetched to suggest that there are a whole host of things besides gender which can make two people compatible, complimentary, or good counterparts for each other. Hence, the argument that marriage is exclusively a reconstitution of divided body parts seems highly suspect to me.
continued...
Finally, I found Mr. Gagnon's commentary on the first chapter of Paul's epistle to the saints at Rome to be contradictory and self-serving. Sure, as a Jew, Paul was very familiar with the language found in the Genesis account of man's creation, but his audience for this letter was Gentile (Romans). Indeed, the entire point he was making is that the observation of nature (separate/independent of any knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures) was sufficient to acquaint them with God and what he expected of them! I would say that anyone with a human brain should be able to see that exploitation of fellow humans, ritual intercourse as part of pagan worship, slavery and the abuses associated with it, pederasty, bestiality, incest, prostitution, gang rape, violence, etc. are wrong!
DeleteMr. Gagnon also apparently believes that man's fall had a profound effect on innate desires (like same-sex attraction), but he seems to dismiss or ignore the fall's impact on the way humans perceived their bodies and the roles that the respective genders would play going forward (and that this all led to more disparity and less fulfillment).
Gagnon seems to be completely immune to the notion that two people of the same gender could compliment each other or provide the companionship needed by us all. He clearly rejects the notion that two people can become one, unless they are sexually differentiated from each other. Moreover, he seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that his assertion that men generally have stronger sex drives than women presents just as great a problem for heterosexual relationships as it does for male homosexual relationships! And his assertion that same-sex attraction is motivated by envy - trying to supply or correct what you lack - is absurd! I am motivated by the same physical esthetic and emotional needs which have always motivated sexual attraction in both genders (and those are God-given).
Sincerely,
Lonnie
Correction: That was "The American Journal of Psychiatry" NOT Psychology
ReplyDeleteOne more thing, Vance Stinson stated: "I would argue that homosexual activity inflicts psychological harm (and possible physical harm, particularly for males who engage in anal penetration) on those who indulge in it..." In answer to this assertion, I would point out that the psychological harms that homosexuals have experienced were inflicted upon them by society (especially the Christian Church). Like other minority communities, the shame, shunning, and systemic impediments which the majority imposes on them can certainly cause feelings of anxiety, depression, and insecurities of all kinds. Moreover, the denial of any opportunity for sexual intimacy or public dating has been shown to produce a variety of mental disorders in those who have been quite intentionally denied those outlets by society. Hence, it is just a bit disingenuous to blame a victim of abuse for the abuse being inflicted upon them by others.
ReplyDeleteAs for physiological problems associated with same-sex behaviors, I would argue that the risks inherent to heterosexual sex are the same for same-sex intercourse. Without being too graphic or immodest, heterosexual couples often engage in the same kind of sexual behaviors that homosexuals practice. Humans have a tremendous capacity for imagination and creativity, and it has been suggested that the human brain is the most important sexual organ which humans possess. Sure, some types of behaviors require extra care, lubrication, protections, etc., but that doesn't make them dangerously off limits to humans. Likewise, the potential for sexually transmitted diseases is not confined to either the homosexual or heterosexual communities. In short, viruses and bacteria do not distinguish between gay and straight. Moreover, we find that the same factors which contribute to the spread of disease within the heterosexual community (i.e., promiscuousness, infidelity, recklessness, violence) produce the same results in the homosexual community. Hence, homosexual behavior cannot be said to produce more hurtful or harmful psychological or physiological effects than heterosexual behaviors.