It's time to affirm

I'm at the age where a lot of my friends have kids that are from little bitties to young adults and I'm hoping you all will be affirming of your children's sexuality in whatever healthy ways it's expressed. I know some of you still have hesitancy here due to the stance of your church or your own reading of the scripture, so I wanted to share my own perspective for two reasons: One, so you'll know you have another friend who is affirming if you ever need support; and two, I believe the most responsible, straightforward reading of scripture allows for hearty, unhesitating affirmation of healthy same-sex relationships and I'd like to share this with you so when the time comes, you can confidently affirm your children.

Let's step through each significant mention of same-sex sexual activity in scripture:

Sodom

Prepare yourself if you haven't read it in a while, the story of Sodom is a wild one, and everyone agrees it has nothing to do with the type of consensual relationships we're familiar with today. But it does address same-sex relationships of a sort, so it's worth our fresh look:

Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them." But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly." Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof." (Genesis 19:4-8)

This story involves an attempted gang rape of the angels visiting Lot's house, and Lot's response is to offer his daughters to the mob. I'm sure this story is one reason Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart conclude in their evangelical classic, How to Read the Bible for All its Worth, "Individual Old Testament narratives are not intended to teach moral lessons. The purpose of the various individual narratives is to tell what God did in the history of Israel, not to offer moral examples of right and wrong behavior." So not only does this story simply not apply to healthy same-sex relationships, we are not to draw moral lessons from Old Testament narratives in any case.

2023 Pride update: Actually, let's pump the breaks here. I'm adding further comment in a few places based on feedback I've gotten since first sharing this article. I've been reminded that there is another story in the Old Testament similar to the story of Sodom in Judges 19:22-25 in which a Levite's concubine is offered to a mob. Some also believe that Ham seeing Noah's nakedness actually refers to Ham raping his father. And finally, there are number of texts that refer to qadesh or qadeshim which are most likely male cult prostitutes. But none of these change my argument, and in fact strengthen the idea that what the Old Testament authors had in view when writing about same-sex relationships was certainly nothing like the consensual, committed and loving relationships that we're looking to scripture for answers on here.

The Law

Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity. You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor's wife, to be defiled with her. You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion. (Leviticus 18:19-23)

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Regarding the applicability of the Old Testament Law to Christians today, Fee and Stuart go on to say, "The Old Testament represents God's previous covenant with Israel made on Mount Sinai, which is one we are no longer obligated to keep. Therefore we can hardly begin by assuming that the old covenant should automatically be binding on us. We should assume, in fact, that none of its stipulations (laws) are binding on us unless they are renewed in the new covenant. That is, unless an Old Testament law is somehow restated or reinforced in the New Testament, it is no longer directly binding on God's people (cf. Rom 6:14-15)."

They continue, "Only that which is explicitly renewed from the Old Testament law can be considered part of the New Testament 'law of Christ' (cf. Gal 6:2). Included in such a category would be the Ten Commandments... and the two great commandments carried over into the New Testament - 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength' (Deut 6:5) and 'Love your neighbor as yourself' (Lev 19:18)... No other specific Old Testament laws can be demonstrated to be binding on Christians, valuable as it is for Christians to know all of the laws."

We could dive in and further analyze these passages in the Law, but I'm trying to keep this article as brief and straightforward as possible, so knowing the Old Testament laws regarding same-sex sex acts are not binding on Christians today, why spend more time on it here?

2023 Pride update: Why spend more time on it? Because you asked for it! My position is that these prohibitions in the law are broad and would include even consensual homosexual relationships. But, put simply, the law does not apply to Christians today as I've demonstrated. I'd also add that even though the language here does seem broad, it is worth asking what the authors and the audience of the original text would have had in mind when speaking or hearing of the prohibition, and the witness of the rest of the Old Testament makes it clear that rape and cult prostitution were in view. Further, the direct context of the prohibition, partially included above, also makes it clear that cult practice and cleanliness play into this as well.

Romans

Douglas Moo, in his highly respected evangelical commentary on Paul's longest letter, says, "Romans ... is a tractate letter and has at its heart a theological argument." The first four chapters Moo calls, "the heart of the gospel" and the reference to same-sex sex acts is contained in a section he labels, "The Universal Reign of Sin" in the third of "three parallel descriptions of people's rejection of God and the corresponding punitive response of God."

The reason I point out the context here is that sexual behavior is not the central message of the passage; instead, the reference here to same-sex behavior is an illustration in a complex doctrinal argument that spans 11 chapters. More specifically, it's a description of the outworking of being turned over to one's own lustful passions as punishment for the idolatrous rejection of God - it's not a prescriptive passage on godly living and relationships - topics on which Paul has plenty to say in his other letters.

But while it's neither the subject of the passage, nor prescriptive language, it is still a strong condemnation of some type of same-sex activity. So let's take a look.

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (Romans 1:22-27)

It seems fairly clear what's going on here, but there are a few ambiguities in the text (for example, what was the "due penalty of their error?") that suggest a deeper understanding of what Paul and his audience had had in mind here would be very helpful. While Moo claims the culturally specific references in Romans are minimal, he's careful to point out, "Romans is no timeless treatise. We must not forget that Romans as a whole is a letter, written on a specific occasion, to a specific community."

Megan DeFranza in Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church makes the contribution, "It is possible that Paul's comments were directed at all same-sex acts, but it is not beyond reason that the apostle was speaking to the majority of the same-sex sex activity found in the Roman Empire. As Stephen Holmes admits, 'Lifelong, exclusive, equal same-sex partnerships are virtually unknown to human history and anthropology outside the contemporary West. Same-sex sexual activity is common, but it almost never takes this cultural form.'"

And Moo also comments, "in many Jewish polemical works, the gross sexual immorality that the Jews found rampant among the Gentiles was traced to idolatry."

So Paul and his audience would almost certainly not have had in mind the type of consensual same-sex relationships we are familiar with today, but instead would have naturally had in mind the types of same-sex sex acts familiar to them - involving prostitution, sex slavery and pederasty - with these things at times associated with temple feasts.

2023 Pride update: People who do not affirm wholesome relationships between members of the same sex today make arguments like, "Paul would have condemned equal, consensual, and committed same sex relationships." But the simple fact is, he did not. And while we are responsible for doing our best to understand what Paul may have meant when he wrote this passage, and what his readers may have understood by it, we are not responsible for imagining what Paul would have thought of something completely foreign to his culture and worldview, and then for some reason applying that to our lives. I believe Paul himself would argue that this work of unpacking what scripture means, then reintegrating it into our current lives, is our own responsibility (collectively and individually). My position is that the degree of difference of perceptions of human sexuality, gender, and sexual behavior between the time of the biblical authors and today is great enough that we need to make our own decisions on these issues as mature Christians.

The sin lists

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10)

But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching. (1 Tim 1:8-10)

Let's look at both of these passages together, because both references occur in what theologians call "sin lists." And because this involves two uncommon words in lists with no other context, the exact meaning of the specific words is vital. And the difficulty of understanding what these words refer to and translating them into English can be illustrated with the table below (also from Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church.)

As you can see, through time and in different translations, these words have been handled very differently. Much ink has been spilled over the meaning of these words and everyone has a different opinion on them. It's all very interesting, but it's beyond the scope of this article - the only point I'm making here is that it's very difficult to know the precise meaning of these words, and how they were used at the time they were written.

Not only is there ambiguity around the meaning of these words themselves, what we concluded looking at the passage in Romans is also relevant here: To the extent that these words did refer to same-sex sex acts, Paul and his readers would have had in mind prostitution, pederasty, and human trafficking. And in my own reading, the highest quality discussions of the meaning of these words are along this trajectory.

Also note that, like the passage in Romans, these lists of sins are not prescriptive. They are intended to be obvious examples of things all would immediately agree of were sin, like murder, theft, blatant sexual immorality and human trafficking.

Conclusion

In conclusion, first, the bible contains no prescriptive text prohibiting same-sex relationships that applies to Christians today. This may sound surprising given the division this issue has caused in the church, but it's a simple fact. Second, the three places in the New Testament that contain apparent condemnations of same-sex relationships demand a deeper understanding of the author's intent, and what the audience would have understood by reading the text. Committed and equal same-sex partnerships were virtually unknown at the time, so it's difficult to imagine Paul and his audience had this in mind. But what we know they certainly had in mind was same-sex prostitution, sex slavery and pederasty, with these things sometimes associated with temple feasts.

So the key question is, should Paul's condemnation of same-sex prostitution and pederasty closely associated with human trafficking and at times involved with religious holidays also extend to include the loving and committed relationships by members of the same sex today? It doesn't at all seem reasonable to me, but I suggest you make your own decision in the context of a healthy spiritual life with guidance from your church.

There are a growing number of wonderful churches today that strongly affirm and offer practical guidance to the LGBTQ community. This includes evangelical communities - and while not everyone agrees, biblical affirmation of same-sex relationships is a well-established evangelical position. And a final note: when it comes to same-sex marriage, this is a separate matter in scripture not addressed in this article and I again I recommend you seek guidance from your affirming church on this issue.

Notes and references

One note to be fair to the sources I quote, Fee and Stuart would not agree with my conclusion here, and in fact, their book I quote has a lengthy discussion explaining how the bible does condemn any and all same-sex relationships. In my opinion, the fact they find it necessary to reverse engineer this position from their interpretive methods is telling. Moo also suggests that Paul's condemnation in Romans would likely have included consensual same-sex relationships, but unlike Fee and Stuart, Moo spends an appropriately proportionate amount of time discussing it that the text deserves - not much.

Meagan DeFranza is a breath of fresh air and the book Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church published by Zondervan is highly recommended.

Quotes from the bible are from the NASB.