(Excerpts from What Shall the Church Say About Homosexuality?, a booklet published by Process & Faith, The School of Theology at Claremont, 1325 North College Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711.)
A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ON HOMOSEXUALITY
There are few references in the Bible: The Bible shows little interest in homosexuality, and some of the few references to it are vague enough to make it uncertain just what kind of behavior they refer to.
Negative judgments about homosexuality: Nevertheless, it is clear that both the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament contain passages that assert that same-sex intercourse of males is unacceptable.
It is possible that this negative view of homosexual behavior is partly motivated by the presence of sacred homosexual prostitutes at some centers of non-Hebrew worship. The concentration of male homosexuality can partly be connected to an ancient belief in the sacredness of semen, which was thought to contain the whole potential person. The role of the egg in reproduction was not understood.
Rules in Leviticus: Homosexual behavior is seldom mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Torah or law includes the statement that, ╥You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.╙ (Leviticus 18:22; see also 20:13, which assigns the death penalty to this act. It is not clear whether this penalty was actually applied.)
Sodom and Gomorrah: The story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness has almost always been interpreted in the Christian tradition as a punishment for aberrant, homosexual behavior. Other references to Sodom in the Hebrew Scriptures carry no implication of sexual misconduct (Jeremiah 23:14; Ezekiel 16:49-50, etc.) Some modern interpreters, following D.S. Bailey, maintain that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 also does not contain any reference to homosexuality. Bailey and others think that the men of Sodom showed a churlish, violent rejection of the customs of hospitality to the strangers (who, unbeknownst to them, were angels or messengers of God). On this view, the desire to mistreat strangers did not include proposed sexual violation of them.
On the other hand, there are strong parallels between the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 and the story of the Levite and his concubine in Judges 19-21. Both are legendary stories shaped by the forms of story-telling tradition, whatever elements of historical memory they may contain. In both stories the men of the city flout the customs of hospitality, and in the Judges tory there is no angel to stop them, so the story is one of actual violence. The actual sexual abuse of the concubine makes it extremely probable that homosexual abuse of the visiting male stranger was also intended by the story. Thus we are on strong ground in assuming that a similar violent homosexual intention was understood to be part of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, precisely as a way of showing contempt for the visitors.
The effort to understand the Sodom story differently stems in part from the fact that this biblical narrative far more than the legal prohibitions, has been the focus of strong emotions which have affected Western law. We may agree with those who have tried to see the Sodom story differently, that this is an inappropriate use of the biblical narrative.
David and Jonathan: Some writers have called attention to the friendship between David and Jonathan as an example of the acceptance of a gay relationship in the Bible. (Samuel 1:26: I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloveds were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.)
This verse, part of David╒s lament after Jonathan╒s death, surely discloses a profound love. Whether or not the relationship had an explicit sexual expression is pure conjecture.
Paul on homosexuality: In the New Testament also, homosexuality is hardly mentioned. Twice Paul rejects it, in the common interpretation of two passages (I Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:26-27). Here, as in the case of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, some modern interpreters have reinterpreted these passages to remove their criticism of homosexuality. This work has shown us that the traditional interpretation is based on less solid grounds than we have usually thought. But in this case also, the main point of the traditional interpretation is well founded; Paul did regard homosexuality as destructive.
I Corinthians: In I Corinthians 6:9 Paul lists a number of wrong types of action that will, he says, exclude one from the Kingdom of God. Such lists were a customary form of moral teaching. Included in this list are two words that have been understood to refer to receptive and active male homosexual behavior. The first of the two Greek words lying behind any translation has a very wide range of meanings; the second is a very uncommon one. John Boswell has reinterpreted these terms, taking the first to refer to the morally weak and the second to the sexually aggressive. (See ╥For Further Reading╙) Boswell holds that homosexual behavior does no appear in this list at all.
His work is a useful warning against reading later views of the church into the New Testament. It is indeed the case that the meaning for the first of these terms is difficult to determine. The second, however, is far better taken in its traditional translation. The New Revised Standard Version╒s rendering is adequate if unattractive: ╥temple prostitutes and sodomites.╙
Romans: Paul╒s main reference to homosexuality is in Romans I: 26-27. Here he sketches the perversion of life that arises from turning away from God. He is not speaking about the individual life, but of the fate of humankind generally as he sees it. Reversing a conventional pattern, he asserts that destructive behavior is itself God╒s punishment (╙wrath╙) for turning away from God. An example of this destructive behavior is that:
╥God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own person the due penalty for their error.╙ (Romans I: 26-27)
We may note in passing that this is the only clear-cut reference in the Bible to female homosexuality.
The whole section is very much like the picture of degenerate gentile life that was part of the missionary preaching of Greek-speaking Jews of the time, Paul may have drawn in part from the apocryphal book, the Wisdom of Solomon, especially from chapters 12-13, for some of his phraseology
Romans 1. Homosexuality was strongly opposed in this Jewish tradition, and Paul spoke from this tradition.
Here, too, John Boswell has called for a reexamination of the way we read these verses. He maintains that Pail was not speaking of gay men or lesbians, but of heterosexual individuals who arbitrarily turned to homosexual behavior. He also holds that the ╥unnaturalness╙ of this behavior did not mean that it was ╥against nature,╙ but simply unexpected and different.
Careful study does not support Boswell╒s interpretation. (See Hays, in ╥For Further Reading.) Paul did indeed hold that homosexual behavior was ╥against nature,╙ and he was not referring to individual persons who changed their sexual orientation, but to a pervasive change in the human situation generally. There is no reason to question the translation of this passage quoted above from the New Revised Standard Version.
Learning from reinterpretations: The attempts noted above to reinterpret key biblical passages have done us a great service. For one thing, they have reminded us that there are gay and lesbian people who are devoted to the Bible and would like to find affirmation in it. This is indeed possible, though it will have to be at a deeper level than by these specific passages. For another thing, writers like Bailey and Boswell have asked us to reexamine the tradition, and they have helped us to see it differently even when much of their claim has to be rejected. For instance, the emphasis in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is not on homosexuality, but on the denial of hospitality -- even though the homosexual element does remain in the story. And a restudy of Paul╒s remarks does help us to see that the translation of one of his terms in I Corinthians 6:9 is uncertain.
No understanding of same-sex orientation in the Bible: There are other passages which could be mentioned, but the ones discussed above sufficiently show what the Bible says about homosexual behavior. It would be a bad mistake to move at once to apply the biblical tradition to our present life. For one thing, no biblical writer had any notion of what today we call a gay or lesbian orientation. The knowledge that one╒s sexual orientation could be genetically determined, or, for that matter, determined by the social environment in early years, was totally lacking in that period. And much of the biblical material is framed in a patriarchical ethic which in indefensible today. We must honestly say that the biblical writers did not understand homosexuality. No biblical writer tried to understand what a lasting, affectionate, sexually active relation between two men or two women could mean. In the biblical tradition, the passion to please God is commendable, but this specific application of it is misguided and, indeed, destructive.
A different way of reading the Bible: What is a more appropriate rootage in the Bible for today╒s world? We shall come back to this question (see page 15 below). Though the Bible╒s specific judgments about homosexuality are no longer tenable, our rootage in the Bible still contributes an important and basic part of our path to understanding homosexuality, by the Bible╒s affirmation of the goodness of the body.
HOMOSEXUALITY IN PROCESS PERSPECTIVE
Sexuality is good: Process theology is in agreement with almost all contemporary theology in affirming the goodness of sexuality,. Given the long tradition f negative attitudes toward sexuality, this unanimity is remarkable. In part it results from the widespread realization that the negation of sexuality as dirty or evil, or as in opposition to the spirit, is not justified by the Bible. Indeed, it stands in conflict with basic biblical teaching about he goodness of creaturely existence.
A deeper rootage in the Bible: We take the Bible seriously., It tells the story of the formation of our faith and of our community of faith. But we do not take it literally in this matter or in any other. We look in it for clues to the kinds of transformation of our existence to which God is calling us. That means looking at it more deeply than for legalistic guidelines.
The Bible affirms the body: In the first place, most of the Bible is grounded in the faith that the physical world is good, since it is created by God; and this good physical world includes sexuality (Genesis 1-2; compare the celebration of human sexuality in the Song of Songs). A fear of sexuality often lies behind a negative attitude toward homosexuality. Though there are biblical passages that can be used to support such a fear of the body, a wiser, more faithful reading of the Bible can be an important part of our acceptance of and rejoicing in our bodies. Women and men are to live with and through their sexuality in responsible love.
We live in a process of change: Secondly, Christians rooted in the Bible will find themselves part of a process of historical change. Though the Bible has often been read as a fixed, static body of rules, Christians of many kinds have been learning to read it as a narrative, a story of humans living, failing, succeeding, learning at they lived in response to God and as God worked to lead them to a fuller vision. Such an approach to the Bible can see it as out story, and yet not try to hold to a particular way in which God╒s will was interpreted in the past. As far as sexual questions are concerned, it is worth pointing out that Christians of very different kinds, conservative and liberal, see today that Jesus╒ absolute prohibition of divorce is not workable or good n the present. This openness can be a guide in reapplying our biblical heritage to others issues like the present one.
Openness is not destructive relativism: Third, such an approach does not lead to a destructive relativism. For though there is no specific element in human behavior which can be taken as forever fixed and immutable, there are guidelines. The interplay between biblical tradition and our own experience takes place in a process of testing, of striving to be open to the Spirit, and of moving toward a creative transformation that will carry into the present the deeper intention of specific practices that are changed. God wants us to live, and to live fully; to live in respect and love for the variety of gifts and pathways; to be critical of ourselves and our traditions in order that ╥new light may break forth from God╒s word╙ (to paraphrase the Puritan preacher John Robinson). Such a rootage in the Bible will make it a vital contributor to the wider vision of life to which God is calling us.
Sexual acts as a means or as valuable in themselves: As long as sexuality was regarded as essentially evil, sexual acts had to be justified by reference to an important end lying beyond their acts and the pleasure connected with them. This end was procreation. Hence the church╒s teaching for many centuries was that sexual activity is acceptable when, and only when, it intends procreation. Gradually this was extended by the recognition that there are in values in marriage other than procreation. Sexuality could also be viewed as contributing to the personal intimacy of husband and wife.
The sexual revolution: The sexual revolution changed the starting point of the discussion. Before the revolution, sexual acts required some justification by some end beyond the acts; after it, any restriction on sexual activity required justification. If sexual activity is essentially enjoyable and good, why should society or the church place any limit upon it other than that it should be willingly accepted by both partners?
In fact, there were some obvious reasons for restrictions. There was the danger of unwanted pregnancy and of disease. Sad to say, these dangers continue and are major social problems. Indeed, they may be more important reasons now than ever for restricting sexual activity. But from a Christian point of view, it is undesirable to lift up these considerations as primary. Of course it is wrong to engage in activity that is in danger of having serious results of this sort. But if these were the only objections, then when the were avoided by proper precautions, promiscuous sex would be acceptable. A large part of our society looks at matters in this way. But before agreeing with this judgment, Christians need to consider matters more theologically.
Sexuality is not morally indifferent: In fact the church rightly refuses to accept this outcome o the sexual revolution. Sexual activity is too important to be treated as morally indifferent except for the danger of pregnancy and disease. Sexual intimacy has a profound effect on human relationships, and its intrinsic quality is affected deeply by the relational context in which it occurs.
Christians in general hold that all aspects of our lives should be ordered to the end of service of God and of our fellow creatures. To make any aspect of life as end in itself disconnected from the rest is a distortion. Hence, sexual pleasure is good, but sexual activity in general should be directed to, and restricted by, larger purposes.
Only in marriage: Some Christians conclude that, since sexual activity is to be subordinated to other purposes, the traditional restriction of sexual intercourse to marriage is the only right path. Others see this as wrong, holding that there are other contexts in which unmarried persons may responsibility engage in intercourse. Some argue that it is the quality of relationship rather than its legal status that matters. Others see the importance of family for society as a whole as such that sexual teaching should be geared to its defense.
Thus far what has been said has had heterosexual intercourse primarily in view. Most Christian reflection on sexuality has focused on this. Some Christians believe that this is the only kind of intercourse intended by God and that homosexual intercourse is inherently against nature. Process through cannot agree with that.
The fallacy of natural law: The notion that homosexuality is against nature is drawn from, or receives support from, natural law theory. This theory holds that human nature is everywhere the same, and that its proper patterns of behavior can be described in abstract or general ╥laws.╙ Thus, the theory of natural law holds that we can learn from nature what the essential purpose of each act is. It sees sexual intercourse as aimed at procreation, and hence as having no place in relationships where this end cannot be realized. Hence, natural law theory argues, homosexuality is unnatural.
From a process point of view, this whole argument depends on an unacceptable ╥essentialism.╙ There is not some one essence of sexuality that defines its universe purpose. The purpose of sexuality can only be found in the purposes entertained by those who engage in sexual acts. Procreation is sometimes the purpose or part of the purpose. But often this is not the case. There is nothing ╥unnatural╙ about engaging in sexual acts for the purpose of mutual enjoyment. If this is true of heterosexual acts, there is no reason to deny that it is natural to seek pleasure homosexually as well. Certainly many people it natural to do so.
Avoid legalism: For process theologians it is important to avoid legalism. Legalism is involved any time a type of act is ruled out apart from the intentions and results involved in its individual instances. This does not mean that human beings cannot generalize about certain types of acts being generally desirable or undesirable. It is hard to imagine any circumstances in which inflicting suffering on another human being simply for one╒s own pleasure could be justified. Hence the generalization that sadism is wrong is a good one. But if we want, we could imagine some circumstance when the inflicting of rather trivial suffering gave very considerable pleasure in which we would be prepared to make an exception.
To take more serious examples, we generalize that we should not lie or steal. But it is a mistake to turn these theologically into laws. There are times when lying may be the least destructive thing to do. To steal food when this is the only way to feed one╒s children may not be wrong.
Both Jesus and Paul encouraged freedom from the law. That did not mean that they encouraged lying and stealing. It means that they encouraged us to become sufficiently mature to discern what is called for in diverse situations. It is not always desirable to conform our lives to such objective rules. We are to live in the Spirit and not by law.
Freedom in Christ: This means that the simple announcement that homosexual acts are inherently wrong is not acceptable to process theologians. Laws like this are just what we are freed from in Christ. But we are not freed from the law in order hat we may become slaves of the flesh. That means that we are not to subordinate other purposes and goals that are directed to the service of God and other people to the gratification of sexual desires. We are to express ourselves sexually in ways that further the achievement of these larger purposes.
Homosexual behavior is an acceptable form of sexuality: In opposition to the position that ╥homosexual acts are sinful,╙ a process point of view will affirm that sexual relations between people of the same sex can be acceptable an good, just as heterosexual relations can be. The process perspective will challenge the church to be concerned about the wider framework into which both sorts of sexual expression fit. Thus it will not endorse the over-simple view that ╥sex is for enjoyment╙ either. No simple role can be laid down, as the discussion in the next few sections shows.
Marriage is not for all: The attachment of Christians to marriage and family is closely related to this understanding. Christians are convinced that bonding together to take care of one another and to raise children in a healthy context is normally and normatively contributory to those larger purposes to which we are committed. Sexual activity that fits into this pattern is unequivocally to be affirmed.
The problem is that this does not work for all. In particular, and especially, it does not work for most homosexuals. The question is whether there are other contexts in which sexual activity can support lives that are in Christian service. Surely there are.
Practical considerations: This has been formulated quite idealistically. The apostle Paul was more realistic. He thought marriage often interfered with the kind of commitment to service for which he called. But he saw that the actual results of abstinence from sex often interfered more. Hence he said it was better to marry than ╥to burn╙ (I Corinthians 7:8). He was, of course, thinking of heterosexual marriage. But the same truth applies to homosexual as well. It is better to have a context for sexual expression than to be preoccupied with a sexuality one cannot express. The real issue for many Christian homosexuals is not whether to be sexually active but how. They know that the effects of total self-denial in this area of their lives are destructive of them and their ability to serve. The question is whether occasional casual sexual acts are to be preferred to a committed relation. The former produce pleasure and temporarily relieve ╥burning.╙ Also casual sexual acts can be engaged in without much danger of public knowledge. The church is more ready to tolerate this than out-of-the-closet long-term relations between two women or two men who ask to be treated as a couple.
A variety of choices: Given this social context, the best choice for some homosexuals may be to chose the single life and satisfy their needs as they can. But it is hard to affirm the social and ecclesiastical teaching against homosexuality that makes this secrecy and promiscuity preferable to commitment and faithfulness between long-term partners. It is a severe criticism of the church that its negative teaching and practice in respect to homosexuality have frequently make it more difficult for gay men and lesbians to find stable and committed relationships, for it is in such a setting that sexual intercourse can express full personal affection and trust. From the point of view of process theology, it is the church which should repent of its role in discouraging what would otherwise be for many homosexuals the finest choice.
An open environment: Repentance here does not mean simple acknowledgement of fault. That comes cheap. Repentance means turning around and acting in new and different ways. It means, first of all, creating a climate of honesty within which people who hurt can talk about their dilemmas and fellow Christians can listen and respond without legalistic judgment.
Sanctioning homosexual commitments: It means, second, that when homosexuals desire the support of the church in committing themselves to one another in love and faithfulness, the church will respond. And since homosexual couples will experience the same difficulties in maintaining their covenant as do heterosexual couples -- and in our society other difficulties as well -- it means that the church will stand ready to help as it can.
Not a legalistic standard: It does not mean that the church will legalistically condemn all sexual activity not related to such covenants. That, too, whether heterosexual or homosexual, may at times be justified. But as a generalization the church can hold up the the norm of committed relationships as the context for sexual intercourse. And it can express its support for this kind of relationship through its general teaching and its ritual practice.
Candidates for the ministry: When the church has identified the norm for homosexual activity, it can use this as a basis for evaluating homosexual candidates for ministry. Those who plan to live celibate lives can be evaluated just like heterosexuals with such intentions. Those who plan to be promiscuous can be evaluated just as heterosexuals with such plans are evaluated. And those who live faithfully with a covenantal partner will be evaluated just like married heterosexuals. From the point of view of process theology, this would be justice.
