Response To Blog Containing Bishop Ward's Response To Concerns
I had reviewed this blog while checking into this matter. May I offer the following? The following information
is offered after having done a bit of research on this issue:
“But if I were a Christian homosexual, this one question would disturb me: Am I interpreting Scripture in the
light of my proclivity, or should I be interpreting my proclivity in light of Scripture?”
– Paul Morris, Shadow of Sodom
+
+
+
+
The UM homosexual advocacy group “Affirmation” view “that the practice of homosexuality is compatible
with Christian teaching” parallels the beliefs of some members of the UMC. However, that does not conform to
sound biblical scholarship, nor to John Wesley’s beliefs who wrote as a purpose for compiling his Notes on the
Bible, “To give the direct, literal meaning of every verse, of every sentence, and, as far as I am able, of every
word in the oracles of God. I design only, like the hand of a dial, to point every man to this; not to take up his
mind with something else, however excellent, but to keep his eye fixed upon the naked Bible, that he may read
and hear it with understanding. I say again, and I desire it may be well observed, that none may expect what
they will not find....”
The first scripture passage to be examined is Leviticus 18:22, which reads, “Do not lie with a man as one lies
with a woman; that is detestable.” Romans 1:18-32, speaks to this issue, especially 26-27 where Paul wrote,
“...God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In
the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one
another. Men committed indecent acts with other men.”2 These Scripture verses are clear in what they mean –
they are discussing homosexual activity.
Some verses link homosexual acts with other offenses such as heterosexual immorality such as I Corinthians
6:9-10, “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the
sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders....” In I Timothy
1:8-10 these actions are condemned indirectly by linking this practice with adultery and refers to these actions
as being “ungodly and sinful” along with other choice adjectives.
In Genesis 19:1-11 we read about Sodom and Gomorrah where in verse 5, the men of the city called out to
Lot and said, “Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them”2 a reference to homosexuality similar to
Judges 19:22 where the Benjamites told the host, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have
sex with him.”
II Peter 2:6-10 further reinforces the Bible’s stand against this practice, especially in verses 6 and 7, which
reads, “...if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an
example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed
by the filthy lives of lawless men...”2 “Filthy” is descriptive of sexually-related matters.
Finally, Jude 7 tells us that, “...Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to
sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffered the punishment of eternal
fire.”
What is being discussed here is clearly homosexual practice.
A summary of the scripture verses is best rendered by Dr. David Seamands, who comments, “...every passage
which speaks of homosexual behaviors is clear, unambiguously negative and morally hostile towards them (the
actions themselves).”3 In referring to what the Bible calls negative or “morally hostile” we generally use the
word sin. Sin has been defined as “missing the mark” and is a thought or action that is not in accordance with
God’s will for our lives. A great problem in this is that involvement in sin separates us from God. (Isaiah 59:2)
Even though we can see how the Bible views this practice, we will still encounter those who dispute what it has
to say in this area….Further clarification is offered by an in-depth examination of the textual references is
Page 1 of 3
contained in an open letter by the eminent Bible scholar Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon to Bishop Griswold, past
presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in Bishop Griswold’s attempt to explain this practice:
+
+
+
An Open Letter to the Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold6
September 30, 2003
Dear Presiding Bishop Griswold,
The following remarks were attributed to you in an Associated Press interview published yesterday
(“Episcopal Leader Defends Gay Bishop,” by Rachel Zoll, AP religion writer;):
He said that in biblical times there was no understanding that homosexuality was a natural orientation
and not a choice. “Discreet acts of homosexuality” were condemned in the Bible because they were acts of
lust instead of the “love, forgiveness, grace” of committed same-sex relationships, he said. “Homosexuality,
as we understand it as an orientation, is not mentioned in the Bible,” he said.
With all due respect, if these remarks are correctly cited, you are in error on all counts.
First, there were many theories in the Greco-Roman world that posited something akin to modern sexual
orientation theory. Philosophers, doctors, and moralists often attributed one or more forms of homosexual
behavior, at least in part, to congenital factors. And some of the same persons could still refer to such forms
as “contrary to nature” – that is, given by nature but not in conformity with embodied existence or nature’s
well-working processes. Lifelong, exclusive participants in homosexual behavior were also widely known in
the ancient world. Indeed, Paul’s reference to the malakoi (“soft men,” men who play the sexual role of
females) in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is one such instance.
Second, you assume that the absence of “choice” regarding sexual impulses absolves one of moral
responsibility for the behavior arising from such impulses. Numerous sinful desires, sexual and otherwise,
are not “chosen” in the sense of being manufactured willfully. That doesn’t make them any less sinful –
though it can and should inform our pastoral response. Who would choose to be a pedophile if it were a
simple matter of choice? Some people find it extraordinarily difficult to be limited to a single sex partner; do
they choose their sexual impulses? Some people grow up without an instinctive aversion to sex with close
blood relations and then fall in love with one such relative; do they simply manufacture such feelings? Paul
describes sin itself in Romans 7 as an innate impulse, passed on by an ancestor figure, running through the
members of the human body, and never entirely within human control. The very nature of sin is that it
generates biologically-related impulses. Why do you think a biological connection disqualifies an impulse
from being sinful? Such thinking is patently un-biblical.
Third, biblical writers were certainly not limiting their condemnation of same-sex intercourse to
particularly exploitative forms. Non-exploitative forms were known in Paul’s day and had Paul wanted to
limit his condemnation to exploitative forms he certainly could have done so. The wording in Romans 1:2427 is quite clear as regards what Paul found objectionable about same-sex intercourse: its same-sexness,
persons seeking sexual integration with a non-complementary sexual same, persons erotically attracted to
what they intrinsically are as sexual beings. This is sexual narcissism and/or sexual self-deception: a desire
either for what one is or for what one wishes to be but in fact already is. The intertextual echoes to Genesis
1:27 (“God made them male and female”) and Genesis 2:24 (“For this reason a man shall . . . be joined to his
woman/wife and the two shall become one flesh”) in Romans 1:24-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, respectively,
confirm that Paul had in view the male-female prerequisite ordained by God at creation. (Incidentally, so did
Jesus when he appealed to the same two texts from Genesis as normative and prescriptive texts for human
sexual relations [Mark 10:6-8].) The beautiful image put forward in Genesis 2:18-24 is that of an original
binary human split down the side into two sexually differentiated beings. If sexual relations are to be had,
“one-flesh” sexual wholeness requires a re-merger of the two constituent parts produced by the splitting. By
“nature” in Romans 1:24-27 Paul meant the complementary structure of males and females still transparent
in material creation – a category of thinking that transcends issues of love and commitment. The description
in Romans 1:27 of males mutually gratifying themselves with other males does not suggest exploitation. Nor
does the mention of female-female intercourse point us in the direction of a particularly exploitative form of
Page 2 of 3
same-sex intercourse. The language in Romans 1:24-27 of being “given over” to preexisting desires and
forsaking any heterosexual relations certainly suggests innate and exclusive passions for members of the
same sex. Scripture is clearly condemning every form of same-sex intercourse. Biblical authors would no
more have accepted a committed and loving homosexual union than they would have accepted a committed
and loving adult incestuous union. Both types of unions are structurally incompatible: sex with sexual or
familial sames.
Much more could be said about each of the points above but what I have written should suffice for now.
Even some pro-homosex biblical scholars such as Bernadette Brooten and William Schoedel recognize
that “sexual orientation” and commitment would have made little difference to Paul’s indictment of samesex intercourse. My book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abingdon which has been out for a full two
years, also makes this clear (see especially pp. 347-60, 380-95). See also now my more condensed discussion
in Homosexuality and the Bible (Fortress), just released, and a forthcoming article in an edited volume
entitled Christian Sexuality (Kirk House), which deals extensively with orientation theory in antiquity.
There really is no excuse any more for making the kinds of false statements about Scripture that you made
in the AP interview. It is especially inexcusable for a presiding bishop – an office that has guarding the faith
as a chief concern – to be making such inaccurate representations of the biblical witness. I urge you to read
more widely, and more carefully, as regards recent work on the subject of the Bible and homosexual
behavior.
Sincerely,
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of New Testament
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
+
+
+
Dr. Gagnon has stated the case very eloquently and with great incisiveness. It is important to read Scripture as it
is and not as we would like it to be to fit our view of “what should be” in our concept of morality. To repeat
John Wesley’s view on this, “To give the direct, literal meaning of every verse, of every sentence, and, as far as
I am able, of every word in the oracles of God….that he may read and hear it with understanding. I say again,
and I desire it may be well observed, that none may expect what they will not find....” 7 In other words, “If you
don’t read it in the Bible, it’s not there.”
It is important not to rationalize our actions by how we view ourselves – nor by how we think God views us –
and that we see ourselves as God sees us. The most accurate view we have of us and what is “right and wrong”
is from the Bible – His word to us. In the previously-referenced scripture verse addressing homosexual acts
along with other offenses, I Corinthians 6:9-10 told us, “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male
prostitutes nor homosexual offenders....” The good news is that it goes on to tell us in verse 11, “And that is
what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” Emphasis needs to focus on the phrase “that is what some of you
were” indicating a condition or state of being that is over and in the past.
+
+
+
+
The above was extracted from the recently-published book On the Brink, Chapter 4, pp. 34-39.
Again, it is important to concentrate on truth and not try to bend the Bible to what we might want to say.
By Allen O. Morris, MBA. Author of the book On the Brink.
Page 3 of 3