1-Feb-92 0:22:12-GMT,16249;000000000001 Received: by andromeda.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA03295; Fri, 31 Jan 92 19:22:09 EST Date: Fri, 31 Jan 92 19:22:09 EST From: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew) Message-Id: <9202010022.AA03295@andromeda.rutgers.edu> To: lcrew Subject: Homosexuality and Christianity [article - long], comments? Reply-To: "Li Min Hua--aka Brother Thorn-in-the-Flesh" Organization: H.R.H.Q. Lutibelle Enterprises >Path: andromeda.rutgers.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!network.ucsd.edu!orion.oac.uci.edu!nntpsrv >From: refling@sloth.eng.uci.edu (John Refling) >Newsgroups: soc.motss >Subject: Homosexuality and Christianity [article - long], comments? >Message-ID: <2988B946.28041@orion.oac.uci.edu> >Date: 31 Jan 92 02:49:42 GMT >Organization: University of California, Irvine >Lines: 283 >Nntp-Posting-Host: sloth.eng.uci.edu This article recently appeared in a campus newspaper at the University of California. The author is submitting it to soc.motss for your comments. Please make comments to me personally. E-mail address is at the end of the article. Homosexuality and Christianity---do the right thing by John P. Refling 20 November 1991 Copyright (c) 1991 by John P. Refling. All rights reserved. Introduction There has been much hostility directed towards gays and lesbians from the modern christian churches and their members. This ranges from simply not recognizing the validity of homo-affectionate relationships, to physical violence directed towards gays or those perceived to be gay. Another form of violence occurs when christians do not take actions to stop physical or emotional abuses of gays or lesbians by other people. In most cases, the actions or inactions which hurt lesbian and gay people are motivated by the belief that homosexuality is a sin. Christians take it upon themselves to punish and ridicule gays and lesbians. Non-christians, seeing the hatred the christians propagate towards lesbians and gays, usually have even less compassion and understanding. In this article, I will explore some of the biblical passages which have misguided well-meaning christians on this subject. Old Testament Texts - Genesis 19 This is the familiar story of the city of Sodom, the wicked city par excellence. The passages say that Lot (himself a foreigner to the city of Sodom) had two visitors---angels, which he fed. Before they lay down [Lot and the angels], the townsmen came to Lot's house to "know" the visitors. Since Lot's guests had already eaten in his house, it was necessary for him to uphold oriental hospitality by guaranteeing them protection [1]. The townsmen were angry that a visitor to their city was sheltering other visitors, and tried to break into Lot's house to deal with him. Lot, out of fear for himself and in an attempt to uphold oriental hospitality, offered his "virgin" daughters to the crowd. Just because Lot offered his daughters to them, does not allow the modern Bible reader to conclude that the townsmen wanted something sexual from either Angels or humans. Furthermore, if the town was the homosexual haven as modern readers assume, then why would Lot bother to offer the townsmen his daughters as sexual decoys? Is there any homosexual meaning in the words of the Genesis passage? What did the Hebrew verb for "know" mean in that cultural context? Words, even in English, mean different things to different people. Words which mean one thing to a Los Angeles bank president may mean entirely different things to a East Los Angeles Gang member, or a high school student from the "valley". Try reading and understanding Shakespere without the use of marginal notes, many of which are still in question. That was written only a few hundred years ago in our own language! Bible scholars tell us that in 10 instances in the entire Old Testament the Hebrew verb "to know" implies heterosexual intercourse, while in 933 instances, no sexual connotation is intended. Thus, one cannot assume any homosexual connotation to the words here [2]. An understanding of the ancient culture is critical. Because of the large distances between cities, the hot, dusty climate, and the lack of water and food, travelers were dependent on the hospitality of others. Were the townsmen being inhospitable to Lot's visitors? Or had Lot broken another taboo by not introducing his foreign guests to the town first? As a sojourner, he had no right to stand against the townsmen. In the New testament, Jesus discusses the vices of Sodom within the context of inhospitality (Matthew 10:14-15). More importantly, Sodom was described as wicked in passages before the Genesis 19 story (Gen. 13:13, 18:20). Because Genesis 13 is chronically earlier than Genesis 19, one cannot reach the conclusion that events in Genesis 19 caused Sodom to be labelled as wicked in Genesis 13. Indeed, Genesis 19 may just be an anecdote which happens to give us a feel for how ancient customs were derived from the need for towns to be wary of its visitors. Beware the Trojan Horse! Arthur C. Clarke noted that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." So too is unknown physical phenomena. Ancient writers mentioned the deleterious atmosphere which withered plants, and the ill-smelling odors emanating from the ground in the Sodom region. While the Book of Jubilees poetically states that the Sodomites were "...causing pollution upon the earth," modern geologists have identified petroleum and gas seepages in the region. Lightning "from the Lord out of heaven" probably did torch the entire town [3]. Those who told the religious stories could have attached a religious meaning to this natural disaster either by assuming that the city must have been very wicked to have been so thoroughly destroyed by using it as an example---"look-what-will-happen-to-you-if-you-disobey," complete with one shred of remaining evidence---the pillar of salt which remains today. Just as many mythologies attempt to explain physical features of the surroundings and at the same time coerce a naive society into desired behavior patterns, Sodom may only be a generic symbol of wickedness, and should not be tied to specific sins. Today, sodomy means may different things in different places and contexts: heterosexual sex in an atypical position, homosexual sex, sex with animals, and even heterosexual sex involving people of different social classes. Coupled with the facts that the term for sodomy originated in Latin in the 12th century A.D. [4], and that Genesis 19 did not have any homosexual connotation for 1800 years of written and oral tradition, it is impossible for us to associate sodomy with the city of Sodom (destroyed in about the 20th century B.C.). I have shown several possibilities for the meaning of this passage: perhaps the townsmen broke their hospitality rule, perhaps Lot broke his responsibility as a sojourner and the townsmen wanted to investigate. Perhaps a natural disaster occurred and the religious elders wrote the account of Sodom into their religious history as a generic example of the consequences of wickedness, much as a modern-day fable. Regardless, there is a slim chance that the passage implies anything sexual, and certainly not homosexual, and cannot be taken as a prohibition against homosexuality by today's Christian church. Leviticus 18:22 Moving on to Leviticus 18:22: "you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination". This most likely is a prohibition of male homosexuality. But it is important to understand what the Old Testament book of Leviticus is all about. The character and function of Leviticus is the revelation of a divine order of society in the commonwealth of Israel. Thus, the themes of the book are worship, sacrifice, temple priesthood and ritual, purification of Israel, atonement, holiness of God and Israel, religious dedication of time life, and property. Let's look at some of the many other prohibitions of Leviticus: you may not eat pork (ham, most hot dogs, bacon, lard), sea animals which do not have fins or scales (lobster, shrimp, crabs, clams, oyster, etc.), swarming animals (mice, lizards), dead animals; you must break any earthen (clay, ceramic) vessel which touches these creatures. Proper use of blood splashing rites and incense-smoke in tabernacles is covered. Sacrifices and burnt animal offerings are described. Finally, in chapter 18, we read of avoiding incest (except for marrying one's daughter which is not mentioned), marrying a woman and her sister at once, sex with neighbor's wife, male homosexuality, and sex with animals. In ancient times Abraham married his half-sister, and Jacob was married to two sisters simultaneously. This chapter deals with Israelite sexual morality, by defining which sexual unions are not compatible with Yahwistic principles. Many American customs violate those ancient Hebrew "laws," and many of the ancient Hebrew religious requirements are not respected by Christians today[5]. For example, the Levitical prohibitions against wearing clothing of mixed fabric, having tattoos, eating particular foods, and oppressing resident aliens are ignored by most Christians today. The killing of unruly children has also been rejected by modern society. So why do Christians continue to cite the Levitical prohibitions against homosexuality? Christians customarily divide the Old Testament law in three parts: the moral (ten commandments), the civil (legislation for ancient Hebrew society), and ceremonial (sacrifices and rituals for Hebrew religion.) Instead of distinguishing between these laws, it is better to say that some injunctions are broad and generally applicable to most societies, while others are specifically directed at particular social problems of ancient Israel [6]. It is important to note that an important purpose of the levitical laws was to remind the Israelites who they were by keeping them ritualistically separate from the surrounding societies. These laws are for the ancient Israelites and cannot be automatically be transplanted in our society. As one can see by reading Leviticus, Christians and American society have rejected these Jewish laws. Further evidence that the prohibition against male homosexuality is strictly for the Hebrews comes in the translation of "abomination" which comes from the Hebrew word "toevah." This word signifies something ritualistically unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation [7]. Remember that Jesus was in opposition to the Jewish religious leaders. Does this also mean that he was opposed to their religious laws? One may argue that there are two periods which revolve around Christ's life and the law: the period before his death which is the final culmination of the old order, in which the law is not annulled by him, but "signs" that it is passing are given. Only after his death has sealed the new covenant and fully inaugurated the new order, does the Levitical law cease to govern relations between God and man for Christians. This may explain why Paul connects the death of Christ so closely with the end of the law. The atonement achieved on Calvary meant that the strict levitical prescriptions for sacrifice and holiness have been superseded for the Christian [8]. In summary, Leviticus is the only condemnation of male homosexuality (lesbianism is never mentioned). However, that law is only applicable to Jews---Christians believe the old law was superseded by Christ. The fact that one does not see Christians protesting outside of butcher shops, barber shops, tattoo shops, or in the cotton/polyester section of clothing stores attests to the fact that modern Christians realize that the levitical laws do not hold for them. That modern Christians do not perform the rituals required of Jews in Leviticus shows that the Jewish rituals are irrelevant for Christians. Even the Hebrew word for "abomination" comes from a distinctly Jewish ritualistic context. It is thus ridiculous for modern Christians to believe that the Jewish prohibition against male homosexuality is relevant to them. The New Testament Let's skip to the New Testament. This will be easier since there is no doubt that it is applicable to modern Christians. Additionally, since it chronicles the life of Christ concurrent to his being alive, rather than being a written account of oral traditions from centuries earlier, there is less chance for error in understanding. It is interesting that Jesus and the Gospel writers make no comment whatsoever on the topic of homosexuality. In I Corinthians 6:10, 1 Timothy 1:10, and Romans 1:27, homosexuality is often implied by modern translators. In the first two passages, the term "Sodomite" is often translated to "homosexual". Recall from the discussion at the beginning of this article, that a Sodomite appears to be a generic term for wicked people of unspecified sin. So the conclusion made by modern translators that these passages have to do with homosexuality is erroneous. In the latter passage, Paul is condemming homosexual acts committed by heterosexual people. There is no mention of love and caring, just lust and passion. What does it all mean? I subtitled this article "do the right thing." Many Christians may think I am calling upon gays and lesbians to "do the right thing" by rejecting their different sexual orientation. Since one can not find any condemnation of mutual, loving, homosexual relationships in the Bible which are relevant to Christians, I am instead asking Christians to "do the right thing." First, what is "the wrong thing?" Those armchair christians who do the "wrong thing" are willing to spread hatred at the expense of other people's lives, against the teachings of the Gospel. They quote laws out of context and from irrelevant sources. They judge others. They punish others. They encourage crimes against gay and lesbian people. They encourage the denial of equal rights. They stand by idle while crimes are committed against gays and lesbians. They are hypocrites in their selective interpretation and adherence of Bible laws. It is ironic that adjacent to these passages used by the overzealous Christian to condemn homosexuality, are passages forbidding Christians from judging, "lest you be judged!" What is "the right thing?" Simply, love, tolerance, compassion, reconciliation, and acceptance of gay and lesbian people. These are true Gospel values. The topic of homosexuality should challenge Bible-believing Christians whose theological attitudes are influenced by prevailing trends of thought rather than biblical scholarship and understanding. Jesus Christ condemned sexual lust, emphasizing the importance of a pure motive in sexuality. This being true, one's sexuality should be no more important to Christians than being right- or left-handed. References [1] The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, Oxford University Press, 1971. [2] Bailey, Derrick Sherwin, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. 1955. [3] The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. 1976. [4] Encyclopedia of Homosexuality. 1990. [5] Patai, Raphael, Sex and Family in the Middle East. 1959. [6] Wenham, Gordon, The Book of Leviticus: The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. 1979. [7] Boswell, John, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. 1980. [8] Harrison, R. K., Leviticus: an Introduction and Commentary. 1980. John Refling is a Ph.D. candidate in Electrical Engineering at the University of California, Irvine. He may be reached through e-mail at refling@sloth.eng.uci.edu. This article appeared in the "Phoenix", Fall 1991, UC Irvine's gay/lesbian/bisexual newspaper, ISSN 1055-095X. His next article will focus on homosexuality within Christianity. Topics will include Biblical descriptions of homosexual couples in committed relationships, same-sex marriages in the early Christian church, and why the priesthood is ideally suited for homosexuality. Copyright (c) 1991 by John P. Refling. All rights reserved.