God and the Gay Christian

 About ten years ago, a friend from high school wrote the book God and the Gay Christian. I eagerly bought it, mainly to support him, but also because I was working on becoming a more affirming Christian, and I thought reading this book would help me along that path. Admittedly, I initially struggled to read it, not because of the subject matter, but because the book's tone didn't match the goofy guy I knew in high school. I resolved to read a chapter at a time until I finally finished it, but after I read the first few chapters, I didn't read it for a long time. Last fall, I finally picked it up again, found the mature tone much easier to read, and finished it in November.

Since finishing the book, I've been thinking more about some of the things he brings up, especially the scriptures that are most often referenced when referring to God's view of homosexuality. The more I read those verses, the more I see that what is really being condemned isn't homosexuality as we understand it today with people in committed relationships, but rather homosexuality used as a pagan worship ritual or a show of force. Here are each of the verses in question:

The Story of Sodom (Genesis 19:1-11): This tends to be one of the scriptures seen as definitive proof of God's condemnation of homosexuality. After all, the people of Sodom practiced homosexuality and God rained down fire and brimstone on them. Surely homosexuals today are doomed as well. What the people who think this way fail to understand is that what the men of Sodom were doing is very far removed from how homosexuals today act. Take verses 4 and 5, for example: "But before they lay down, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.'" This is not about men being attracted to each other; it's an attempted gang rape. The men of Sodom's first thought when they realized there were visitors in their town was to try to overpower them, showing an extreme lack of hospitality. Lot offered up his daughters as a replacement, but the mob rushed him until his angelic visitors pulled Lot back into the house, shut the door, and struck the men with blindness.

What would have happened if the mob had accepted Lot's offer? We find the answer in Judges 19 following a similar situation in Gibeah. A Levite was traveling through with his concubine and planned to spend the night in the town square. Then, an old man who lived in the city came by and provided them a place to stay so that they would not have to spend the night out in the open. Soon after they arrived at the house, it became clear why the old man wanted them out of the square. Just like in Sodom, a mob came to the door wanting the guest to come out so that they could "have intercourse with him." (Judges 19:22) Just like Lot had, the old man offered up his daughter and the Levite's concubine, and the mob wasn't satisfied. However, since this guest was human, the concubine was sent out to the mob, and they raped her all night. Following all that abuse, she died right outside the old man's door. This was not an act perpetrated by men who were simply attracted to other men, but by men who were lustful and hungry for power.

The Abomination (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13): I grouped these verses together because they are very similar. Leviticus 18:22 states "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." and 20:13 says that any man found in such a situation should be put to death. There are two problems with these verses being used to condemn homosexuality. The first is the phrase "as with a woman". Gay men have no desire to lay with a woman because they're not attracted to them. Yes, some gay men have been in heterosexual relationships before coming out, but I still think that lying with a man would not feel the same for them as lying with a woman did. When they were with a woman, their focus would have been maintaining their cover, which would not have felt natural. Now that they are open about who they are, their relationships feel natural, and lying with their partner is something they look forward to and enjoy.

The other problem with using these scriptures in this way is the vast number of other condemnations in Leviticus that are not condemned today. Leviticus 19:19 prohibits clothing made of two different materials, but almost all of the clothing we wear now is made of at least two different materials, and those clothes are sometimes stronger as a result. Leviticus 19:28 prohibits tattoos, but there are many Christians now who not only have tattoos but also use them as a way to show their faith. Another example is Leviticus 11:7, which prohibits eating pigs, and while some Jews still adhere to this, most Christians don't. In fact, a traditional dish for celebrating our sacred holidays is made from a pig! When we don't adhere to every law given in Leviticus but use some of them to condemn a whole group of people, we are guilty of taking scriptures out of context to suit our own purposes.

Degrading Passions (Romans 1:26-27): These verses are part of a larger section about what can happen in society as a result of rejection of God. Rejecting God is a slippery slope that can lead to greater and greater sins. These verses in particular state: "For this reason 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." These verses are not talking about loving homosexual relationships, but rather lustful shifts in people's behavior. The scenario in these verses would be like my husband and my friend's husband suddenly deciding that instead of being married to us, they'd rather go off and have an orgy together. Lust is condemned for everyone, so using verses about lust to condemn people who love each other is wrong.

Wrongdoers (1 Corinthians 6:9-10): These verses list wrongdoers who will not inherit the kingdom of God. The translation I use the most begins the list like this in verse nine: "Fornicators, idolators, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites," (NRSV). This version does not specifically call out homosexuals, and where other versions place them along the list varies. The NIV puts "men who have sex with men" in place of both male prostitutes and sodomites, and the CEB replaces those two with "both participants in same-sex intercourse". Some replace only one, like the NKJV, which replaces male prostitutes with homosexuals, the NLT, which replaces sodomites with "practice homosexuality", and the AMP, which replaces sodomites with homosexuals. Some other interesting differences between versions are that both the AMP and the KJV have "effeminate" in place of male prostitutes, and the KJV has "abusers of themselves with mankind" in place of sodomites.

What I find most interesting about these verses is that in truth, none of us really deserve to inherit the kingdom of God. The only way we can do so is by believing in Christ. What I think these verses are really alluding to is that unrepentant wrongdoers who will not accept God's grace will not inherit the kingdom of God. I also find it interesting that we don't use verse ten in the same way to condemn "thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers" and tell them they can never make it into Heaven. For this reason, and the difference between translations on where homosexuals fit in this list, these verses should not be used to condemn them.

Looking at the other words and phrases used in place of homosexuals in these verses also sheds more light on what is really being condemned in these verses. Male prostitutes, like female prostitutes, are people who sell their bodies for money, either willingly or unwillingly. The condemnation against them is condemning the inherent abuse and cheapening of the temple of their bodies such behavior leads to, especially when the prostitute is not the one in control of the situation. The term "sodomites" refers back to the men of Sodom referenced in Genesis 19, and as I stated earlier, they were full of a lust for power rather than a genuine attraction. Effeminate refers to men who have feminine qualities, and while this does apply to some homosexual men, it does not apply to all. There are also some heterosexual men who others might see as effeminate. What makes a man effeminate is open to interpretation, and as such, really isn't a synonym for homosexual. Last but not least, "abusers of themselves with mankind" means anyone who is cruel to themselves around others, or allows others to be cruel to them. This could mean a person who is always putting themself down or never accepts compliments, someone who jumps from one bad relationship to another, or someone who's always out looking for a fight. Those who are involved in or seeking a loving homosexual relationship are not abusing themselves.

Who the Law is For (1 Timothy 1:9-10): These verses are very similar to the two quoted above from 1 Corinthians, and like them, not every translation actually calls out homosexuality specifically. Some say sodomites, like the NRSV and NKJV, and the KJV says "them that defile themselves with mankind", which is really more akin to prostitution. Either way, it is not condemning those who have a genuine attraction to those of the same sex but rather those who use power to get what they want.

(Versions mentioned in this post: NRSV-New Revised Standard Version, NIV-New International Version, CEB-Common English Bible, NKJV-New King James Version, NLT-New Living Translation, AMP-Amplified Bible, KJV-King James Version)