Welcome Committee

Why Does the Bible Divide Us?

A Conversation With the Bible
on Same Gender Attraction
Part I: Introduction and Biblical Stories

by Don Blosser

Introduction

The Bible is the basic source of guidance and authority for Christian faith. When there are issues to be resolved, we ask ?What does the Bible say?? We assume that when we read the Bible, we will then know what we should do.

Historically, other persons who have told us what the Bible says and we generally believed them without bothering to check on what they said. But now, our attitudes toward the Bible and toward authority have changed. We do not want to be told what the Bible says, we want to study it for ourselves.

The result is that we do not always agree on what the Bible says. Conferences, congregations and individual persons now argue over how the Bible should be read. When we fight, we quickly accuse each other of not being biblical. Then we refuse to work together at finding resolution, choosing instead to condemn and talk about each other, often ending in separation. It is tragic when the very scriptures God gave to unite us actually tears us apart, causing separation and a great deal of personal pain for everyone involved.

Why do we have such confusion over what the Bible says when we all read the same Bible? We have intense feelings about the Bible (and that is good). But sometimes our intense feelings cause us to use the Bible in ways that hurt other people (and that is bad). We have good intentions, and we believe that we are being faithful to the biblical message. But the scary part is that often we do not recognize how we are hurting other people, and we don?t even know who these people are who are being hurt. This only adds to the pain, because often the persons being hurt are within our own congregation, our circle of friends, or even our own families.

How Do We Read The Bible?

II Tim. 3:16 says the Bible is ?profitable for teaching, for correction and for training in righteousness?. But how do we decide what should be taught, or who needs to be corrected, or what behavior is righteous? Some Christian people argue that the Bible must be taken at face value. What the Bible says is what the Bible means. The words of the Bible carry an eternal significance that is separate from the culture in which they were written. These words are not merely human words, they are God's words. The text, as well as the meaning of the text, does not change over time.

Other people who are equally committed to the scriptures ask, ?What did the words mean when Paul or Moses used them?? They believe that the task of the biblical scholar is to get as close to the mind of Paul as possible. We can know the intention of God best when we understand the setting facing Moses as he spoke to this issue. What were the images in Paul's mind as he wrote to the church at Corinth? Are these the same images that come to our minds as we read the text today? Our use of language is different from Paul's use, and our understandings of science and culture are more sophisticated than what Paul had been taught.

Which Direction Does the Bible Point?

It is possible to see the Biblical culture as the ideal to which God is calling all cultures. This approach says the faithful church should be calling persons back to that Ist Century culture where God was so intimately present. If we could replicate the biblical teachings in our own culture, that would be distinct progress. Contextualizing the Bible causes us to stray from the truth because contextualizing allows everything to become relative. SinceGod is unchanging, the intentions of God never change either. Using this approach, the mission of the church is to recover that which has been lost.

But others in the church say, ?NO! God is not simply ?back there?, God is ?out there? ahead of us, calling us to new life, new faith and new obedience?. For these persons, the model for the faith community is not the ancient culture of the Bible, but the eternal culture of the heavenly community. We are called to share the message of God's mercy and grace with all humanity in every culture.

For those who share this understanding, the questions are different. They ask, ?What were the intentions of God behind these specific guidelines given in the Bible? What was God wanting to accomplish in that setting?? We do not have to duplicate the specific ethical practices of the first century in order to be faithful to the will of God today. Faithfulness means taking the biblical principles and applying them to our lives in ways that give contemporary meaning to these eternal truths.

This may help us understand why we have such deeply felt tensions among us. We come to the Bible asking different questions. We are standing back to back, looking in opposite directions, and yet we each sincerely believe that we are facing God. It is no wonder we don?t come out at the same place. Our Biblical knowledge would be greatly enhanced if these persons who are facing in opposite directions might at least talk with each other, sharing what they see so that everyone might benefit from the combined wisdom each brings to the discussion.

Reading the Bible Together:

When we have the courage to talk with persons who interpret the text differently, the experience can expand our own understanding of the text and encourage us to be more accepting of others even when we strongly disagree. In the following studies, we will look at how various groups read the text so that we might better understand our differences and have a stronger basis for talking together.

The Biblical Stories:

Genesis 1-2:

The Genesis accounts refer to God's creation of male and female for the purpose of bearing children and perpetuating the human race (emotional love is a much later addition to the experience). Some students of the Bible believe this proves that heterosexual relationships are normative because God created humanity as male and female and they were given the charge to ?be fruitful and multiply?(Gen.1:28). Gen. 2:24 has a man leaving his parents and becoming ?one flesh? with a woman, proving God's intention that sexual intercourse should be an exclusive male-female relationship. All other expressions of sexual activity are in violation of the way God created us to be, so these alternate expressions are sinful.

It is easily understandable why this explanation is persuasive: It is a simple, straightforward reading of the text. However, Hebrew language scholars are concerned that this explanation reflects neither the spirit nor the content of what the text actually says [1]. Gen. 1:26-28 presents the biological identity of Adam and Eve as male and female, not husband and wife. It does not address the sexual or sociological relationship of these two creatures.

The purpose of the text is to identify the special status these male and female creatures have over the rest of creation. They (and they alone) are made in the image and likeness of God. Humanity is elevated above other creatures and has a dignity and responsibility matching that of the creating God. This is in sharp contrast to other ancient cultural creation accounts that depict humanity as an inferior class created to serve the fickle whims of the gods.

God intends for humanity to perpetuate itself (be fruitful and multiply), but the procreation of children is not the defining element of being human. Persons who are childless are certainly no less human than other persons who have families. Nor is heterosexual union the central defining element of humanity. Persons who are celibate are fully human. Paul has some very positive things to say about remaining single in I Cor. 7. Procreation is not a command of God that must be applied to every person for them to be fully human. In the Old Testament environment, infertility was regarded as a curse and was even attributed to divine affliction on the person. But with a dramatic difference in population issues between then and now, it is no longer appropriate to apply that theological assumption to persons today.

Genesis 1-2 reflects a primitive view of humanity. People looked at human beings as simply ?male and female,? separate entities with no indication of overlapping connections. But we have learned to recognize that male-female designations are really an overlapping continuum and are not separate detached entities. Thus it is inappropriate to even think that gay and lesbian persons are somehow something other than either male or female.

We also have a rapidly expanding knowledge of genetics and sexual formation which argues that sexual identity is actually a complex formulation of genetic linkages that are formed in the womb prior to birth. The call to the faith community is to accept persons with the genetic structures given by God at birth. The desire to ?fix it? because it is seen as an aberration defies God's creating activity and places us in the position of being judge over God's activity. Unfortunately, the people of God have a long history of wanting to play judge over persons who are perceived as being different from the majority of the community.

Genesis 19:1-29

The story of Sodom is a tragic account of an ancient culture at its elemental worst, including abuse of strangers, offering women as a sacrifice to save men, etc. Richard Hays states that ?this text is irrelevant to the topic of same gender sexual issues. There is nothing here on which to base any judgement about the morality of same sex behavior.? [2] But since the perception of reality can be as powerful as the reality itself, this story must be considered.

Two angels come to the city and Lot (a recent immigrant who is not fully accepted) insists that they stay at his house. That evening the men of the city, young and old, to the last man, come to Lot's house and demand that Lot bring them out ?so that we may know (?yadah?) them.[3] In an attempt to divert the crowd, Lot makes the despicable decision to offer his two virgin daughters as a sexual alternative, but the men of the city refuse.

The traditional explanation is that Sodom was overrun with sexual sins. With the arrival of the strangers, the men of Sodom see the opportunity for new sexual partners, so they go to Lot's house demanding that they might have sexual intercourse (yadah) with them.

This approach argues that the men of Sodom refused to accept Lot's offer of his daughters because they wanted men (not women) as sexual partners, and in their active promiscuity they saw the two visitors as offering a creative new sexual experience. This is based on a very narrow (but technically acceptable) reading of ?yadah.? The Hebrew verb is translated to know. It is not normally used for sexual intercourse, but that meaning is clearly implied in the following sentence where Lot offers his daughters who ?have not known? (yadah) a man. Schmidt argues that this sexual meaning of yadah in vs 8 controls the sexual meaning of yadah in vs 5. This proves that homosexual fervor was the driving force behind the mob action, and for that behavior the city was condemned by God [4]. Schmidt then links Ezek.16:49 ?Sodom did abominable things before God? with Lev. 18:22 ?you shall not lie with a man as with a woman for it is an abomination?. He concludes that the abomination of Sodom was the fact that men were having sexual intercourse with other men. He refers also to Philo and Josephus [5] who indicate that Sodom's sins were sexual in nature.

But other Biblical scholars take serious issue with this approach to the story. They agree that yadah is sometimes translated with sexual meaning, but insist that this is not the usual meaning. Yadah occurs 1048 times in the OT, and in 933 times it means ?learning to know someone as a person?. In only 11 cases (slightly more than 1%) does it serve as a euphemism for sexual intercourse.[6]

But the text contains other information that urges a more careful reading of the story. The text is clear that ?every last man in the city, both young and old? (vs 4) came to Lot's house. Does this mean that every man in the city was of same gender orientation? That is statistically problematic if not totally impossible. In ancient culture, sexual intercourse was a private experience. It violates even the most pagan cultural norms to argue that 50-100 men would gather to engage in sexual activity with these two strangers. It is also clear that Lot does not believe the group has same gender sexual attraction, for he offers them a heterosexual option (his two daughters) which the men refuse because sexual activity is not their issue.

What would bring every man in the city to Lot's house under these conditions? Two strangers have come to the city and are staying with Lot. Lot is already suspect because he has no history as a member of the community. The men are worried about the security of their homes and their families. ?Who are these strange men? We want to know (yadah) them.? Fear over city security was a common reality in the ancient world. Stories of spies who infiltrate cities and then report on wealth, military defenses, numbers of men, and city layouts as precursor to military attacks are told throughout the ancient world (see Joshua 2). The men, all of whom are responsible for the common defense of the city, want to know whether the presence of these visitors poses a threat to the safety of their families. Thus, Hays is right, this is not a sexual story, and it does not address the issue at hand.

However, there is one more important supporting detail. Jesus referred to Sodom on three separate occasions: (Mt.10:15, 11:23-24, Lk 17:29, plus parallel readings). In each reference the issue Jesus identifies with Sodom is greed, luxury, and refusal to accept the stranger into their midst. This certainly sounds like Sodom. The story reports mob action by men who are worried about their security. They try to protect their wealth by intimidating and terrorizing the visitors, and by being certain no spies survive to report on their vulnerabilities. Jesus affirmed the Ezekiel tradition to explain the destruction of Sodom. The sin of Sodom was ?pride, excess of food, and prosperity without showing compassion for the poor and needy? Ezek.16:49. Is it acceptable to read into a story something Jesus himself rejected? He certainly would have known the religious mythology regarding Sodom, but he chose not to accept it. As followers of Jesus this is a very important lesson. When we make Sodom a story about sexuality and God's condemnation, we are rejecting the interpretation Jesus gave, and we are reading our own agenda into the story. That is a dangerous Biblical practice.

Judges 19:

The story in Judges 19 has many parallels with the Genesis story. A Levite man was returning home with his concubine, and they had to stay overnight in the village of Gibeah. They camped in the village square because ?no one took them in to spend the night? 19:1 (a violation of local cultural hospitality). An old man from the city found them in the square and invited them to his house.

That night some perverse men of the city surrounded the house demanding that the visitor be turned over to them ?that we might know (yadah) him?. Rather than endanger his guest, the host offered his own virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine as bribery to leave the guest alone. The men took the concubine and gang raped her throughout the night. The next morning she was found dead on the front steps.

Once again, the behavior of the men toward the women was (by our standards) without excuse and absolutely despicable [7]. The translation of ?yadah? to mean sexual intercourse (vs 22) is the sole basis for making this a story of same gender atrocity. However, this translation has no basis when the details of the story are examined

The men of the city asked that the visiting man be given to them so that they might know his identity and purpose. Here again, the issue is city security, not sex. The fact that they accepted the concubine and engaged in heterosexual gang rape of her supports this concept.Had they been asking for male sexual partners, the substitution of the concubine would not have been acceptable.

This story is ultimately about condemnation for social inhospitality, and sexual abuse. Same gender sexual activity is not present in this story. That is a creation of later mythology that is read back into the story, and is totally inappropriate.

Leviticus 18 & 20

?You shall not lie with a man as with a woman.?

There are two very forthright statements in the Holiness Code which forbid male same gender intercourse. This act is given as one of the sexual offenses for which the death penalty is the appropriate response. Since it is listed as an abomination, this text is commonly used to insist that we should not even talk about same gender sexual activity, but simply obey the command of God and label it as the sin that it is.

This text creates intense emotional responses. Any discussion of the text is immediately suspect, being seen as an attempt to destroy the clear and obvious meaning of scripture in order to promote a sinful agenda. It is very difficult to talk about a topic when simply talking together is labeled sinful. But honesty insists that we examine the text, accept the message, validate the context, and look for an appropriate, biblically faithful, contemporary application.

One core element is the relationship of the Old Testament Levitical Law with Christian ethical behavior. Should we see a distinction between OT Moral law and OT Ceremonial Law? Is it automatically true that all Levitical guidelines are retained in Christian faith? There are other Old Testament guidelines that were either deemed obsolete or simply disregarded by the New Testament Church (circumcision- Acts 15, purity laws- Mark 5, unclean food-Acts 10, inclusion of marginalized people Lk.14). Rather than argue the relative merits of specific laws, it might be more helpful to look at the purpose behind the laws, then determine how that purpose can be given faithful expression in our own experience.

An important issue in Jewish faith and culture was the protection of the family and thus, the nation. Children were seen as a vital factor in the security of the community. This led to rather specific and severe punishments for sexual behaviors that interfered with conception. Sexual withdrawal, masturbation, or other ?waste of semen? activities were condemned because those actions precluded the possibility of reproduction. They were in violation of the will of God which intended to protect the security of the family by providing children who would care for the parents in their old age. Security for the nation was achieved through providing male children who would defend the country against invading forces.

The culture did not think in sexual orientation concepts, only in terms of male and female. Men were to engage in sexual acts with women for the purpose of bearing children who would support the family and the nation. This could not happen if men engaged in sexual intercourse with other men. Thus such acts were sinful not because of the acts themselves, but because of what they did to the security of the community. Today, there is the common temptation to separate the individual act from the community consequence on the premise that what persons do is entirely their own business. But this is not the biblical model. In Old Testament times the community was a constant presence in the experience of the individual; behaviors that could never serve to expand the population of the tribe were condemned as sin because they endangered the very survival of the tribe.

Should that same principle still hold for the church today? Clearly not, for population is now a matter of concern in exactly the opposite way. Should we condemn couples who choose not to have large families? Are couples who decide not to have any children living in violation of God's will?

There is yet another group of scholars who approach these texts in a different way. They correctly say that Canaanite worship was extremely sexual in nature. Religious prostitutes, both male and female, were agents through whom one participated in divine activity. The divine powers of the gods were tapped through these sexual acts, leading to fertility and abundance in the agricultural realm. Thus sex, worship and prosperity were united in one act. The command to not lie with a man was a precise command telling Israelite men to avoid Canaanite worship. This would also explain the severe consequence of death for such sexual activity; the necessity of keeping the community free from all infiltration of pagan influence is identified several times with severe commands to obliterate those religious influences that challenged Israel's faith (see I Kgs.18:40).

The church faces the difficult task of discerning whether these laws that governed Israel should automatically be transferred to the new faith community of Jesus. We do not agree about the nature of the OT stories. But what can be done? These OT stories involve explicit sexual abuses of the most destructive kind, behaviors that should not be tolerated for a minute. Is it a valid use of scripture to take these horrific OT sexual acts, put them under the umbrella of vague, general sexual terminology, and then attack a specific contemporary sexual expression which has nothing whatever to do with the sexual abuses of the original stories. How can we recover the centrality of the biblical message shown in the teachings of Jesus about how we treat persons who are oppressed, abused, or simply different from us in one specific way?

_______________

Endnotes

[1] Choon Leong Seow, ?Textual Orientation?, pp. 26-27, Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality Robert Brawley, ed. Westminster, John Knox Press, Louisville, KY. 1996

[2] Richard Hays, pg 381

[3] Thomas Schmidt, pg. 86-89

[4] Schmidt, pg. 88

[5] Philo, Specialibus Legibus 3.37-39, Antiquities of the Jews, 1.11.3

[6] G. Johannes Botterweck. ?yadah?, pp. 448-481. Botterweck identifies more than 10 different uses of ?yadah? in English translation. He provides careful statistics and explanation for the various word uses in the English Bible.

[7]Choon Leong Seow, pg 21. The modern reader is horrified by the actions of the Levite (as also with Lot in Gen. 19), but this is in accord with the Near East hospitality codes of the day where protection of the stranger in your house took precedence over the love of one's own children.

Continue to Part II: Reading the Bible Together: New Testament

Introduction

Open Letter

More signatures

Booklet Series

Booklet Orders

Book Project

Resources