What the Bible Says About Same Gender Relationships
John Yoder
I. Introduction: Affirmation of Scripture
I want to begin by affirming the centrality of the Bible. For me that means trying hard not to use
scripture to justify my beliefs, not cherry picking, proof texting, or overemphasizing minor
points at the expense of the larger biblical message. Affirming the centrality of the Bible means
listening carefully to the intent of the original authors and considering the context within which
they were writing. For Christians taking scripture seriously also means privileging the New
Testament and within the New Testament giving more weight to the words and deeds of Jesus.
As for most Christians, my approach to scripture has been influenced by my experiences in the
community of my youth. I grew up in the Mennonite Church (a close theological cousin of
Presbyterians) where the Bible was regarded as the authoritative guide for life. However, as an
adult I now see that the Bible was sometimes misused as a tool of social control. As a child I
heard many sermons calling on Christians to faithfully apply the following “authoritative”
biblical standards: women must not cut their hair or wear trousers; women must be silent in
church; women must be submissive to their husbands at home; women must wear a prayer
veiling in church; Christians should not play cards, dance, drink, smoke, or attend movies;
Mennonites should not marry people outside of the faith (i.e. Methodists, Catholics, Baptists, or
Presbyterians); and Christians must not wear jewelry or use instrumental music in church. Of
course, both divorce and divorce and remarriage were considered unacceptable sins. We
regarded these rules as powerful requirements of a godly life and practicing them as evidence of
a high regard for scripture. In hindsight it is easy to recognize the rules often had more to do
with enforcing cultural conformity and ethnic identity than with the message of Jesus. This
approach elevated many minor and outdated teachings to the same level as loving one’s
neighbor, showing compassion to the unfortunate, and trusting in grace, not works.
As a somewhat sheltered individual growing up in rural Iowa, I knew little or nothing about
homosexuality until I was an adult. When I first encountered homosexuals, I regarded them as
sexual deviants and their actions as perversions. It was only when two dear friends, members of
our small group in Evanston, separated because the husband could no longer deny his
homosexual identity that I had to confront the issue of homosexuality in a personal way.
Because both friends were strong Christians who wished no harm to each other, I began to ask if
the church’s opposition to gays and lesbians was something like the opposition of the church of
my youth to jewelry, cutting hair for women, dancing, and divorce.
II. Background: Biblical Concepts of Sin
The Bible describes four categories of sin. The first two, contempt for God and lack of care for
neighbor, are the most serious and easiest to understand. The second two, disrespect for ritual
purity and disregard for the natural order of creation, are less important and more subject to
arbitrary interpretation. It is significant that when the Bible labels homosexual activity as
1
immoral, the rationale is always that homosexual practices violate the standards of ritual purity
or disrupt the order of creation. Contempt for God or lack of care for neighbor are never
invoked.
In Luke 10:17, Jesus summarized the entire law saying we are to love God completely and love
our fellow human beings as ourselves. Sin then is the opposite: the love of self above our love of
God or neighbor. Thus, first of all, sin is the arrogant attempt by humans to usurp God’s
sovereignty, to claim to know better than God, and to deny their place as God’s creatures.
Second, sin is the neglect or exploitation of fellow human beings, especially the weakest and
most vulnerable: the widow, the orphan, the foreigner. The Bible also recognizes a third
category of sin, the sin of impurity. When offering a gift to God or when entering into God’s
presence, humans were to guard against impurity. Thus, a sacrificial animal was to be
unblemished and the priest officiating over the sacrifice was to be ritually pure. Ordinary people
were also to be attentive to matters of purity, including drawing clear lines between themselves
and unbelieving pagans. For Jews, dietary laws and circumcision were two of the most
important markers. However, while purity laws were regarded as highly significant in the Old
Testament, they were reinterpreted by Jesus and the early church. Instead of a visible mark on
the body which would identify someone as a Jew, Jesus called for a circumcised (changed) heart.
Instead of taking great care never to eat unclean food as a sign of belonging to God’s
community, Paul said that faith in Jesus was the passport for membership in the kingdom. There
is yet a fourth biblical way to think about morality. Some scriptural passages describe sin as a
violation of natural law. The logic of those passages is that humans were morally bound to
respect the natural order God had ordained at creation. Respect for government, respect for
parents, and respect for marriage all flow out of this way of thinking. One strength of basing
morality on the order of creation is that right and wrong can easily be understood by everyone.
A weakness is that the human understanding of what God intended in creation often reflects
prevailing cultural norms and the status quo rather than God’s actual desires. Thus, slavery, the
subjection of women, and racial segregation were justified as “natural” divinely ordained
elements of an orderly society.
In considering the concept of sin, it is important to understand how people in biblical times
thought of homosexuality. In the ancient world, homosexual practices took a number of forms.
Not all were based on same gender attraction. One kind of homosexual behavior was the act of
inflicting humiliation upon another through rape. Soldiers commonly committed rape, both
heterosexual and homosexual, as a way to disgrace an enemy. As an expression of power rather
than an act of lust, this type of homosexual rape was especially demeaning because it treated the
defeated male enemy as a woman. Outside the context of war, men could demonstrate their
superiority over other males through the act of coerced homosexual intercourse. Men could
elevate their social standing by sexually penetrating a man of higher standing. Thus, after the
flood, Ham sought to gain ascendency over both his father and brothers by uncovering Noah’s
nakedness (a euphemism for having sex). A second form of homosexual activity was
2
prostitution. Many people in biblical times regarded temple prostitution as a religious ritual.
Non-sacred prostitution, often involving human trafficking of young boys, was common in
Greek and Roman times when Paul was writing. A third expression of homosexuality was the
Greek and Roman practice of an older man acting as a mentor to a young man with whom he had
sexual contact. What is important to note is that none of these types of homosexual activity had
anything to do with loving, egalitarian, and long-term same-gender relationships. All of these
forms of homosexual behavior were exploitative, unequal, and transitory.
III. Relevant Specific Biblical Passages
I want to emphasize that while I believe what I will be saying about the Bible is correct, my goal
is not to convince those of you who differ with me that I am right. I do hope, however, that all of
us might recognize that serious Bible believing Christians can hold differing perspectives about
what Scripture has to say regarding same-gender relationships. In times of disagreement about
the meaning of scripture, people say we could settle the dispute by just accepting the “plain and
clear” meaning of scripture. Of course, the mere fact that well-meaning people do disagree
about what is “plain and clear” is proof that often the meaning is neither plain nor clear.
Discerning the “plain and clear” has proved to be a great challenge when looking at what the
Bible tells us about same-gender relationships. Part of the problem is that the Bible says very
little about the topic of same gender attraction. Furthermore, there is often disagreement about
the meaning of the small handful of verses that explicitly refer to homosexual practices. Most
important, the scriptural passages that reject homosexual activity measure it against the more
ambiguous standards of ritual purity and natural law, not against the stronger moral principles
grounded in love of God and neighbor. These difficulties might cause us to ask if the current
turmoil in the church over the issue of homosexuality is not driven by something other than a
strong commitment to biblical authority. Let us keep that question open as we consider what the
following passages in scripture have to say about homosexuality.
1. Genesis 19 and Judges 19: The Inhospitality of Sodom and Gibeah
In these closely parallel stories (Lot and Sodom in Genesis 19; the Levite and the town of Gibeah
in Judges 19) hostile townsmen threaten to gang rape male visitors (the angel messengers in
Sodom and the wandering Levite in Gibeah). In each story, the householder, who is honor
bound to protect his visitors, offers his virgin daughter(s) as a way to appease the ferocious mob.
To interpret these tales as a condemnation of homosexuality, especially homosexuality that is
non-violent and consensual, is to completely miss the message of the stories. The purpose of
each story is to denounce inhospitality, a terrible transgression in the ancient world. It is
important to note that Jesus himself understood the story as an example of inhospitality. Jesus
compared the villages that did not welcome the 70 he sent out with the people of Sodom (Mt
10:15 and Lk 10:12). Significantly, Jesus made no mention of homosexuality. Agreeing with
Jesus that Sodom’s iniquity was not homosexuality, the prophet Ezekiel described the sin of
3
Sodom as pride, gluttony, a luxurious lifestyle, and a lack of concern for the poor. (Ezekiel
16:49) In spite of what Jesus and Ezekiel focused on, some people still believe the horrendous
demands of the mob in Sodom condemn homosexual relationships because the mob called for
same-sex intercourse. They sometimes cite Jude, verse 7, which makes a general reference to
Sodom’s “immorality” as “unnatural lust.” However, anyone reading Genesis 19 as a criticism
of homosexuality would then have to read the tale in Judges 19 as a condemnation of
heterosexual relationships since the victim of gang rape in that story was a female (the Levite’s
concubine) rather than a male. What is clear is that the stories in Genesis and Judges deal with
inhospitality not sexuality and thus they are not relevant for any discussion of same gender
relationships.
2. Leviticus 18:22 and 20: 13 “And together with a male, you (masculine pronoun) shall not bed
as with a woman, (it is) an abomination.”
These duplicate verses are part of the so-called Holiness Code (Lv chapters 17-26), a collection
of laws which generally begin with “Thou shalt not” or “Thou shalt.” These laws deal with all
four forms of sin, discounting God, disrespecting neighbor, disdaining ritual purity, and
disregarding God’s created order. Some of the rules repeat elements of the 10 Commandments,
others offer guidelines for priests, and some provide directions for people in general. The laws
cover sexual morality, ethnic purity, ritual cleanliness, the proper ordering of God’s creation, and
relationships to neighbors, the poor, the sojourners, and slaves. While parts of the Holiness Code
continue to be important, for example “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lv 19:18), a passage
Jesus quoted in Luke 10:27, other parts of the Holiness Code would be regarded as irrelevant
today. For example, immediately after Lv 19:18 the people are told not to mate different kinds
of animals, plant two different kinds of seeds in a field, or wear clothing made of two kinds of
material. Other “thou shalt not’s” include men not tapering their hair or cutting their beards, not
having sex with a menstruating woman, not eating blood, not getting a tattoo, or not marrying a
deceased uncle’s wife. Rules for priests (clergy) were especially strict. Priests were not to marry
a widow or a divorced woman nor were they to be lame, have scabs or an itch, have one limb
longer or shorter than another, be blind, be a dwarf, or have crushed testicles. Some of these
rules were designed to keep imperfection and impurity out of the place of worship. Others were
intended to keep things in their original created categories (thus no hybrid animals or plants or
mixing types of cloth). The rule about homosexuality, like the rules against humans engaging in
incest (very broadly defined at that time) and having sex with animals, were also intended to
keep things in their proper places. Some scholars hold that Leviticus regards homosexuality as a
serious moral failure, not a mere violation of purity laws, because both Leviticus 18 and 20 label
same sex intercourse as to’e’va, an “abomination.” However, the same Hebrew word is used
elsewhere to prohibit eating abominable animals such as camels, rabbits, rock badgers, and pigs
(Deut 14:3-8), the act of remarrying one’s previously divorced wife (Deut 24: 4), using gold or
silver that once had covered idols (Deut 7:26), and cross-dressing (Deut 22:5). In conclusion,
given the eclectic nature of the rules in the Code of Holiness, it is unfair to arbitrarily identify the
4
act of homosexuality referenced in Lv 18:22 and 20: 13 as deeply immoral while dismissing
most of the other practices, even those labeled as abominable, as no longer applicable.
3. Lists of Sin in Corinthians and Timothy: “Neither the immoral, nor idolaters, not adulterers,
nor malakoi nor arsenokoitai nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers
will inherit the kingdom of God” (I Corinthians 6:9-10). “The law is laid down for
the…murderers…immoral persons, pornois, arsenokoitais, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and
whatever is contrary to sound doctrine.” (I Timothy 1:10).
While most modern English translations clearly suggest that homosexuality is featured in these
lists of important sins, the original meaning in Greek is far less evident. The word malakoi,
which is often translated as homosexual, actually means soft, effete, effeminate, or simply weak
willed and morally indecisive. While this range of meanings makes any translation provisional, I
agree with scholars who think the term probably refers to the passive partner in male prostitution.
Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Paul, wrote about that type of person. Philo vividly
described men who painted themselves as women, dressed as women, took on the mannerisms of
woman, and offered themselves as sexual partners for hire. Some of those men went as far as
castrating themselves in order to be more female like. Philo strongly condemned this form of
male prostitution as an extreme example of lustful, non-procreative sexual activity. It is likely
that Paul was thinking of this kind of behavior when he used the word malakoi to discuss
homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 10:6-9. Obviously, there is no comparison between this type of
activity and committed same gender relationships.
The compound word arsenokoitas (male+bed) is more problematic than malakoi because it is
used only in these two New Testament passages. Since Paul, who is the first person known to
have used the word and the only person to have employed it in the Bible, does not define the
term and since it appears very rarely outside the Bible, scholars are left to guess about its
meaning. Because the two words arsenos and koitas do appear in the Greek translation of
Leviticus 18 and 20, it is reasonable to assume that arsenoloitas does describe homosexuality,
which is the way many modern translations render the word. However, throughout history this
word has also been translated as male prostitute, pedophile, or masturbator instead of
homosexual. The word pornois, from which we get the word pornography, does not suggest
anything as specific as homosexuality. In fact, the term does not always describe a sexual sin;
for example Esau is accused of pornois because of the way he foolishly sold his birthright
(Hebrews 12:16).
Although Pauline writings contain five other similar lists of moral failures; none of them even
mention homosexuality. The fact that Paul refers to homosexuality in only two of his lists and
then without any explanation makes it difficult for moderns to know how strongly Paul felt about
homosexuality and especially what forms of homosexuality he was criticizing. Was he
discussing all same-gender relationships? Or, as I suspect, was he condemning male prostitution
and homosexual orgies? Condemning male prostitution should not be seen as an indictment of
5
committed same gender relations any more than condemning female prostitution should be
interpreted as an indictment of heterosexual unions. In conclusion, it is hard to justify making a
strong case against homosexuality based on these two short and unclear passages.
4. Romans 1:26-28. Men and women giving in to dishonorable passions, both men and women
exchanging natural (physikos) relations for unnatural relations with people of the same gender,
and men committing shameless acts with other men.
By far, this is the clearest and strongest passage in the Bible condemning homosexuality. While
some scholars believe the passage does not reject all same-gender relationships, only those that
are lustful, promiscuous, and/or selfish, my guess is that Paul disapproved of homosexuality in
general. (Note, however, that I use the word guess). Paul’s use of the Greek word physikos
(nature/natural) suggests that he would have been critical of homosexuality for the same reason
that most Jews of his day disapproved of the practice. Homosexuality seemed inconsistent with
the natural order created by God. Perhaps because he was simply restating a general opinion,
Paul did not feel a need to provide an extensive explanation in Romans or to give any
explanation at all in Corinthians or Timothy. Paul simply assumed everyone would understand
the reason for his disapproval.
Because Paul’s criticism likely reflected prevailing Jewish opinions about same-gender
relationships, we might better understand Paul by again considering the writings of Philo of
Alexander, who also based his moral arguments on nature. One of the most prominent Jewish
biblical scholars of Paul’s day, Philo wrote explicitly and extensively about homosexuality, a
practice he considered degenerate because it was unnatural. Commenting on Leviticus, Philo
argued that homosexuality contradicted the order of creation. This is consistent with Paul’s
reasoning in Romans 1 where he used the word physikos(natural). Philo maintained that the
purpose of marriage was for procreation. Therefore, any sex not for the natural purpose of
producing children was sinful because it violated nature’s intentions. For Philo, sex just for the
purpose of pleasure was contrary to nature. That is why he so strongly condemned male
prostitution as noted earlier. Referencing Leviticus, Philo also condemned sex with a
menstruating woman because he thought the seed would be washed away. Furthermore, he
stated that marrying and having sex with a woman known to be infertile was immoral, a lustful
act intended only to satisfy carnal desires. For the same reason, Philo opposed same-gender sex
which offered no possibility of conception.
Although Paul agreed with Philo, their argument from nature is not something we would accept
today. If we did, pastors could not conduct marriage ceremonies for infertile couples, young or
old, birth control would be prohibited, and sermons would include admonitions against all sexual
relations not intended to result in children. It should also be noted that Paul extended the logic of
nature to take a strong stand against other matters we now see as unimportant. For example,
6
Paul considered men wearing long hair as unnatural and therefore immoral. (I Corinthians
11:14).
Modern people who use the natural law/created order concept face the problem that the concept
can be used with equal authority on both sides of the same-gender conversation. While the
traditional view is that the naturally created order for intimate relationships is exclusively male
and female, that perspective assumes that all other arrangements are contrary to creation. In
other words, that same gender attraction is an aberration. That would be the perspective of Wes
Hill a leading gay advocate of celibacy for gays and lesbians. If same gender attraction is a flaw,
an imperfection in created order, then people with same gender attractions must either be “cured”
of those attractions (something Hill and virtually the entire psychological community reject as
both unloving and almost always impossible) or those people must suppress their attractions.
The second approach means dealing with same gender attraction as a handicap or disability to be
kept under control and channeled in other directions. Hill takes that approach, calling on the
church to offer gays and lesbians a welcoming embrace and acceptance so that celibate gays and
lesbians can find acceptance and community. Hill mourns the fact that the church has too often
rejected rather than embraced people with same gender attractions. Hill says the church most
offer gays and lesbians an attractive future.
Standing against the traditional view is the more recent perspective that God created people with
both heterosexual and homosexual attractions. While the one is much more common and people
in the ancient world assumed it was the only natural orientation, we now know that between 3
and 10 percent of all humans are born (created with) same gender attractions. In other words,
they are naturally homosexual. If they are born (created) that way, then the logic of morality
being tied to natural order says that for them the moral path would be to live out the attraction
with which they were created. Since they are naturally inclined to bond with people of the same
gender and since God wills that everyone experience close companionship and community, then
they should be allowed to enter long-term committed unions. This would certainly be the
dominant view within the gay and lesbian community, and a view held by an increasingly large
number of American Christians. In fact, these people would say that calling on homosexual
people to change their orientation or to accept celibacy is unnatural. They would remind us of
Paul who recommends celibacy, but who acknowledges that for many people that is an
unrealistic option.
In conclusion, Romans 1 is the Bible’s strongest statement against all same gender relationships.
However, people who emphasize this brief passage as a prohibition of all same gender
relationships are unlikely to accept the natural order logic behind Paul’s admonition. Paul’s
criticism of homosexuality may also have reflected his disgust with male prostitution, a disgust
all Christians should share. Also, in light of modern psychological knowledge, the logic of
created order/natural law can be used with equal conviction to say that same-gender unions are
moral and acceptable.
7
5. 1 Timothy 2:9-15: The order of creation, the place of women, and homosexuality
Although 1 Timothy 2:9-15 says nothing about homosexuality, people who condemn
homosexuality as being opposed to nature should consider this passage where Paul offers an
extensive discussion about the order of creation. As noted above, Paul opposed homosexuality
because he saw it as unnatural, as something in conflict with the order God intended for creation.
If one uses Paul’s logic as a justification for their opposition to same-gender relationships, then
they should also accept the logic Paul uses when he discusses the role of women. In 1 Timothy,
Paul argues that women should dress modestly, not braid their hair, not wear gold, pearls or
expensive clothing, should learn in submissive silence, should not teach or have authority over
men, and should keep silent in church. What is most significant is that Paul justifies each of
these admonishments by appealing to the order of God’s creation. Women must be submissive
because Adam was formed first and because it was not Adam but Eve who was deceived and
thus brought sin into the world. Paul concludes by saying women will be saved through
childbearing, an act he regarded as a woman’s natural purpose. In conclusion, to be consistent,
anyone using the argument that creation condemns homosexuality must also accept Paul’s
statements about the place of women.
6. The Gospels and Jesus
There are no passages in the Gospels and no statements from Jesus that refer to homosexuality.
Repeat, Jesus never spoke about same gender relationships. To me, this fact is the most
important reason why we should be cautious how we speak about homosexuality. Jesus could
have commented on the topic; he was well acquainted with the Holiness Code in Leviticus. His
statement “love your neighbor as yourself” comes from Leviticus 19. Some commentators even
argue that the Centurion’s servant/slave was a youthful sexual partner (a common Greek and
Roman practice). In recording the event in which Jesus healed the servant, Matthew uses the
Greek term pais, a term which can refer to an underage homosexual partner (Mt 8:5-13). Luke
uses the more generic term slave (doulos), but notes that the young man was the Centurion’s
honored slave (Lk 1:1-10). If the Centurion’s was a homosexual relationship, Jesus did not
condemn this relationship. (However, because the use of these terms is quite speculative and
makes an argument from silence, I do not want to make too much of this example.
While people who regard same gender relationships as sinful agree that Jesus did not address the
topic directly, they view his statements about marriage in Mark 10:2-12 and Matthew 19:3-10
are proof that he would have disapproved of homosexuality. In answer to the Pharisees, who
asked if divorce was lawful, Jesus responded by saying that from the beginning God made male
and female and that what God joined together humans should not separate. Critics of
homosexuality point out that Jesus spoke only of male and female when describing marriage.
These critics go on to say that the statements provide powerful evidence that Jesus opposed
same-gender marriage. There are, however, two problems with using these passages in this way.
8
First, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. That means people using the passage to oppose
homosexuality are making an argument from silence. Second, and far more important, the point
Jesus was making had to do with divorce. And what Jesus said about divorce can only be
understood as a categorical condemnation. Jesus stated that divorce was wrong and that
remarriage after divorce was adultery. Although Jesus allowed no exceptions, few modern
churches enforce that teaching. Over the course of the last century, the Presbyterian Church
came to accept divorce and remarriage, even for clergy. This shift did not come because of any
new theological or exegetical insight. It came about because friends, children, siblings, cousins,
aunts and uncles, and even parents had gone through divorce and had remarried. Divorce and
remarriage became acceptable in the church because Christians came to believe that not all
marriages should be kept intact, because it seemed unfair to prevent good people from
remarrying, and because we know the church is not a body of unblemished people. We
recognize that all are broken and imperfect, nonetheless saved by grace.
In short, we accept divorce and remarriage by saying that while the statements of Jesus are
admirable ideals, humans are imperfect and we should be flexible and loving. Of course many
people justify remarriage after divorce by saying that the sin of divorce can be forgiven and what
is most important is that one does not continue to repeat the sin. However, Jesus clearly said the
very act of remarriage was an act of adultery. Taking Jesus’ words at face value would mean
that each time a pastor in our church conducts such a marriage, that couple is committing
adultery and the pastor is blessing the act.
Of course, I recognize that divorce is sometimes a regrettable necessity. And I no longer
consider remarriage after divorce a sin (two of my siblings are divorced and happily remarried).
What seems unfair, however, is that people set aside Jesus’ direct and explicit words about
divorce and remarriage and then use the same passage to condemn homosexuality, something
Jesus never mentioned. For example, Robert Gagnon, the New Testament scholar frequently
cited by people who regard homosexuality as a sin, agrees that Jesus teachings on divorce and
remarriage are among the clearest of all the things Jesus had to say about morality.
Paradoxically, although Gagnon uses the passage to condemn homosexuality, he accepts divorce
and remarriage, even for clergy so long as the practices do not become a pattern repeated four or
five times! As far as I know, other people with high regard for Gagnon as an authority on the
evils of homosexuality do not apply the same rigorous standards to divorce and remarriage.
At times, people calling on homosexuals to live a celibate lifestyle cite the words of Jesus when
he tells his disciples that whoever would follow must deny themselves and take up their cross.
(Matthew 10:38-39; Luke 14:27, and John 12:25-26). Both Robert Yuan, a celibate gay
Christian who teaches at Moody Bible Institute, and Robert Gagnon, a heterosexual Presbyterian
seminary professor, use these passages to call on gay and lesbian Christians to take the hard road
of self-denial. While Jesus’ call to costly discipleship is a central teaching in the Gospels, it is
important that we do not apply the teaching in a way that Jesus never intended. Since Jesus
9
never discussed the topic of same-gender relationships, it seems arbitrary to use the passages in
Matthew, Luke, and John to make statements about homosexuality. Just because something is
difficult, for example celibacy for gays and lesbians, does not mean that it fits with Jesus’
teachings about following him, of carrying the cross and laying down one’s life for the Gospel.
When spelling out the hard requirements for faithfulness, Jesus talked about humility, not being
tied to possessions, maintaining fidelity in marriage, showing love to enemies, offering
forgiveness, expressing kindness and love to the outcasts, and not seeking power and honor.
Neither Jesus nor any other New Testament writer linked sexual abstinence on the part of
homosexuals to self-denial and carrying the cross.
In Matthew 23:23, Jesus chastises the Pharisees for emphasizing minor issues—tithing even their
mint, dill, and cumin—while neglecting the more important matters of justice, mercy, and faith.
The Pharisees must have thought of themselves as staunch defenders of the faith, not letting
themselves get even close to disobeying God’s will. But in their meticulous attention to legal
minutiae, they completely missed the actual intent of the law. They also committed the sins of
pride and self-righteousness. Is the issue of same-gender relationships the mint, dill, and cumin
of our day? In exaggerating the importance of homosexuality in scripture, do twenty-firstcentury people risk creating a new version of scripture, a version in which the mint, dill, and
cumin take center stage?
Remember, Jesus never mentions same-gender relationships and he criticizes religious people for
elevating minor issues in a way that obscures the central intent of Scripture. Modern Christians
risk changing the message of Jesus when they attempt to draw him into the conversation about
committed same-gender relationships and turn his teachings on divorce into a criticism of
homosexuality.
IV. Relevant General Biblical Passages
1. Genesis 1 and 2
In Genesis 1 we learn that God created humans in his image, after his likeness, and that humans
are to have dominion over all the earth. Genesis 1 also says that God created humans as male
and female, telling them to multiply. Since God is neither male nor female, the gendered nature
of human beings cannot be what is meant by the phrase “in our image.” Also, the passage, like
the rest of Genesis 1 is descriptive, not prescriptive. To suggest that Genesis 1 prohibits same
gender relationships pushes the text beyond its original intent. If the passage represents a
command, then the church should also require all married couples to have children and multiply.
Genesis 2:18 says the reason for creating both man and woman was that it was not good for
Adam (the generic human being) to be alone. The human, Genesis says, needs a helper, a
companion. Genesis 2 then goes on to say that a man will leave father and mother to cleave to
his wife. While this passage is commonly cited in support of heterosexual relationships only,
such an interpretation overlooks the passage’s main point which is the need for companionship.
10
If a fundamental human need is to enjoy a long-term intimate relationship, Genesis should not be
used to require gays and lesbians to live perpetually apart. An even worse solution is to suggest
that gays or lesbians experience a committed close relationship by entering into a heterosexual
marriage. While many gays and lesbians have tried that approach, generally in an attempt to
deny their identify or to conform to social expectations, the results have rarely been positive.
Finally, as noted earlier, Jesus used Genesis 2 to reject divorce and remarriage, not as a way to
comment on homosexuality.
2. The book of Acts
In many ways, the issues facing the church described in the book of Acts are similar to those that
challenge our church today. Then the issues were enforcing the Jewish laws about unclean food
and about circumcision. For Christians who grew up as Jews, eating unclean meat was
repugnant (imagine how we feel about eating cats, puppies, or ponies). For Jewish Christians,
not being circumcised seemed even more unacceptable. Early Christians who would not have
been able to explain why eating pork or not being circumcised were actually harmful might have
argued, “But we are rejecting the authority of scripture if we eat unclean food or abandon
circumcision.” Much of the book of Acts chronicles the way Peter and Paul helped the church
move beyond those points of law which had long been so central to Jewish identity. Because the
church eventually agreed (reluctantly) with Peter and Paul, the Gospel was able to reach an
entirely new demographic, the Gentiles. Had the Jewish traditionalists prevailed, the church may
never have expanded beyond its original ethnic boundaries. If the church of our day continues to
reject gay and lesbian Christians in an effort to maintain its purity, will it be closing the door to
the “Gentiles” of our day?
3. Possible biblical guidance for same-gender relationships
Many Christians fear that accepting same-gender relationships will lead to a culture of anything
goes culturally and sexually. However, there is no reason to conclude that tolerating samegender unions will result in accepting pedophilia, polygamy, or incest. Sexual relations between
adults and children are always exploitative even if both parties consider them consensual.
Polygamy and incest generally involve exploitation and certainly risk fostering high levels of
conflict within a family setting. However, same-gender relationships are not characterized by
these problems. The Bible contains ample teachings which guard against complete license. The
very same rules the church now applies to heterosexual relationships are rules that should apply
to all close human interactions including same-gender relationships.
Commitment, equality, love, respect, and honesty are some of the standards that should govern
all Christian relationships. Fleeting relationships, relationships driven by lust and selfishness,
relationships that are one sided and exploitative, and relationships characterized by duplicity are
just as wrong for gays and lesbians as for straight couples. Everyone, gay or straight, should be
against things such as pornography and one-night stands. People in both heterosexual and
11
homosexual relationships should guard against the commercialization and trivialization of sex,
the pressure on individuals to conform to unrealistic standards of sexual attractiveness, and the
popular glorification of being on the prowl for new conquests. None of these things are
consistent with the New Testament’s teachings about loving others, treating them as persons of
worth, not giving in to lust, and not having multiple partners. Paul's lists of Christian moral
behavior—perseverance, gentleness, kindness, love, forgiveness, seeking the good of the other,
and honesty--apply to everyone, gay and straight.
V. Consensus, Covenant and Communion
We may never reach consensus regarding same-gender relationships. Now that I have come
to the end of this presentation, are all people in this room now of one mind regarding the issue of
same-sex relationships? Does everyone now agree with my more “progressive” perspective? Of
course not. Is it possible that after Jim Edwards outlines his more “conservative” view the entire
congregation will fully embrace his position.. Again, the answer is no. So, does that mean these
Sunday school sessions are an exercise in futility? Should we have never organized this series of
classes? Should we despair about the future of our congregation, our presbytery, and the
Presbyterian denomination because a broad consensus is so unlikely? What do we do when a
significant number of people in our church are convinced that same-gender relationships are
sinful and yet another group of people believe that taking a stance against same-gender unions is
an expression of unchristian intolerance? How can we live together if we cannot come to
complete agreement now or anytime soon? Permit me to suggest that we are approaching the
issue from the wrong direction. Instead of working harder to come to consensus about the intent
of scripture or about what traditional creeds or modern psychology can tell us, we should ask
ourselves what it means for people to live as a covenanted community and further consider the
record of the Christian church in attaining consensus and purity.
God’s covenant embraces imperfect people. The Old Testament is a record of God’s
covenanted community. In Genesis 15 and 17, God entered into a covenant (contract) with
Abraham. God’s promise was to prosper Abraham, bless all his descendants, and make
Abraham’s children a blessing to the entire world. Although God also called on Abraham to be
faithful, Abraham was far from perfect. Furthermore, the history of Israel was a history of God’s
faithfulness and Israel’s all too frequent unfaithfulness. Yet, in the end, the covenant endured
and all the people of Israel remained as a part of God’s family. The history of Israel suggests
that God’s covenant fidelity trumps human moral misunderstandings and failures. Although the
children of Israel were disobedient and although they often misinterpreted God’s will, they
remained God’s chosen people. God kept them within his protective covenant. The message of
the Old Testament is that God makes room in his family for the misguided and broken so long as
they choose to identify with that family; we should do the same.
12
The church is a communion of sinners who will be the unblemished bride only when Christ
returns. For those who are uncomfortable with the current state of affairs in the Presbyterian
Church, it is important to remember that the church has always been a messy place, a place
where people have always been imperfect and where there have always been differing views
regarding theology and practice. Jesus’ own disciples were contentious, proud, vindictive,
unreliable, and unfaithful. Even though he knew all of their faults, Jesus gathered them around
the communion table and God used them in remarkable ways. The early church was not much
better than the disciples. From the time of Peter and Paul, there has never been a pure or
undivided Church. The glory of the church will never be that everyone agrees or that all
members are morally pure. The miracle is that God continues to use us in our imperfection and
in our differences. Being in church is a bit like being in a family. Like the church, a family is
built on a covenant, a promise. Every person in this room has been in a family; none has been in
a perfect family. None of us have been perfect parents, perfect children, perfect siblings, or
perfect spouses. All of us have failed at being an ideal family. Does that mean we should give
up, that we should dissolve our family in order to find one that is perfect? The church is the
bride of Christ, but it will not be a perfect bride until Christ returns. We deceive ourselves if we
imagine we can somehow create or find an untainted denomination or congregation.
We would be wrong to think on the one hand that if the PCUSA rejected same-gender unions or
on the other hand required all congregations to celebrate same gender unions the church would
be unblemished and we would never face another deeply divisive issue. As Jesus commanded,
we should spend our time and energy proclaiming the good news of the Kingdom, not attempting
to remove the tares from the wheat. Why? In part because we aren’t very good at judging, but
mostly because we should focus on the essentials of the Gospel. That Gospel teaches that the
church is a communion of flawed people bound together by a covenant of faith in Christ, not by
natural law, ethnic identity, or even moral purity. All of us, both laity and clergy, are imperfect
and broken; all of us who promise to follow Jesus are welcome to worship and serve in God’s
kingdom.
VI. Conclusions
1. The Bible’s discussions of homosexuality are remarkably infrequent. Out of the
approximately 31,000 verses in the Bible only six verses address the issue directly. The four
explicit verses in the New Testament only appear in Paul’s writings. Our current fascination
with the issue of same-gender relationships is making a mountain out of a molehill.
2. While Paul disapproved of same-gender relationships, the Greek words many modern texts
translate as homosexuality can be interpreted in other ways, in part because some of the words
are extremely obscure. Although, like other Jews of his day, regarded homosexual activity as
unacceptable because he believed it violated the order of God’s creation, that same logic led him
to argue for the submission of women. Therefore, if they are to be consistent, modern Christians
13
who turn to Paul for a condemnation of same-gender relationships would need to support his
much more explicit and highly developed views regarding women.
3. Jesus never addresses the issue of same-gender relationships, and the New Testament
passages modern Christians use to suggest that Jesus opposed homosexuality actually deal with
divorce and remarriage. If one turns to Matthew 19 and Mark 10 to label homosexuality a sin,
then one must do the same with divorce and remarriage. That would mean that clergy who
conduct a marriage ceremony for previously divorced people are blessing an act of sin.
4. The Book of Acts chronicles the efforts of Peter and Paul to free the church from the
constraints of Old Testament teachings about ritual purity and ethnic identity. Circumcision and
avoiding unclean food were regarded as critically important for Jewish Christians. Not being
circumcised and eating food such as pork or shell fish would have seemed just as repulsive and
immoral to Jews as homosexuality does to many Christians today. However, holding to a
traditional legalistic view would have crippled the church’s mission to expand the Gospel to the
Gentile world.
5. While the issue of same-gender relationships has become a highly charged issue for many
Christians in the 21st century, the energy fueling the current debate does not come from scripture.
It is not worth dividing the church over a small handful of frustratingly unclear passages. If the
issue were truly a question regarding the authority of scripture, we would be far more consistent
in the way we understand the moral admonitions in the Bible. If modern Christians would apply
the same level of energy to more prominent biblical teachings about reaching out to the poor, the
widow, the fatherless, and the aliens as they apply to the issue of homosexuality, the world
would be a different place. We must ask if the intense focus on homosexuality is not a way to
turn our attention to the insignificant in order to avoid the great responsibility to love God with
all our hearts and our neighbors as ourselves.
6. No matter how many Sunday sessions we devote to the topic of same gender relations, no
matter how many biblical experts speak, no matter how many Hebrew and Greek words we
examine it is unlikely that our congregation, let alone our presbytery or denomination, will come
to a complete consensus—at least not in my lifetime. Does that mean our only options are either
to split (divorce?) or remain together begrudgingly? No! Differences in our church—local,
regional, national, and international—are healthy reminders that we are imperfect members of
God’s family, a community held together by God’s commitment to his everlasting covenant. As
Christians we are part of a worldwide communion of broken people joined in our common faith
in Jesus, not a people united by the precision of our theology or the perfection of our lives.
While we look forward to the day when Christ will come to claim his unblemished bride, we
deceive ourselves if we pretend that here on earth we are pure, all-knowing, and righteous.
Conclusions:
14
1. When discussing same gender relationships, the Bible consistently disapproves of them.
2. However, the Bible’s discussions of homosexuality are remarkably infrequent. Out of the
approximately 31,000 verses in the Bible only 6 verses address the issue directly. The 4 explicit
verses in the New Testament only appear in Paul’s writings. Our current fascination with the
issue of same-gender relationships is making a mountain out of a molehill.
3. The Bible describes four types of sin: 1) love of self more than love of God, 2) love of self at
the expense of love of neighbor, 3) ignoring ritual and ethnic purity, and 4) violating the order of
creation (natural law). Passages referring to homosexual activity place it in the last two
categories. Jesus and the early church deemphasized the importance of ritual purity and the
order of creation has been used to justify oppressive social structures such as segregation.
4. While Paul probably disapproved of same-gender relationships, the Greek words many
modern texts translate as homosexuality can be interpreted in various ways, in part because some
of the words are extremely obscure. Most likely, as was true of other Jews of his day, Paul
regarded homosexuality as wrong because he believed it violated the order of God’s creation.
That same logic led him to argue for the submission of women. Therefore, if they are to be
consistent, modern Christians who turn to Paul for a condemnation of same-gender relationships
should also support his views regarding women.
5. Jesus never addresses the issue of same-gender relationships and the New Testament
passages modern Christians use to suggest that Jesus opposed homosexuality deal with divorce
and remarriage. If one uses Matthew 19 and Mark 10 to classify homosexuality as a sin, then
one must do the same with divorce and remarriage. That would mean that clergy who conduct a
marriage ceremony for previously divorced people are blessing an act of sin.
6. The Book of Acts chronicles the efforts of Peter and Paul to free the church from the
constraints of Old Testament teachings about ritual purity and ethnic identity. Circumcision and
avoiding “unclean” food were regarded as critically important for Jewish Christians. Not being
circumcised and eating food such as pork or shell fish would have seemed just as repulsive and
immoral to Jews as homosexuality does to many Christians today. However, holding to that
view would have crippled the church’s mission to expand the Gospel to the Gentile world.
7. While the issue of same-gender relationships has become a highly charged issue for many
Christians in the 21st century, the energy fueling the current debate does not come from scripture.
The issue is far, far more important for us than it ever was in the Bible. If modern Christians
would apply the same level of energy to preaching the Gospel, reaching out to the poor, the
widow, the fatherless, and the aliens as they apply to the issue of homosexuality, the world could
be a different place. We must ask if the intense focus on homosexuality is not a way to turn our
attention to the insignificant in order to avoid our responsibility to love God with all our hearts
and our neighbors as ourselves.
15
8. A common objection to same gender relationships is that they place us on the slippery slope
to accepting sexual relationships between adults and children, polygamous marriages, incest, or
even marriages between humans and animals. However, unions between adults and children are
always exploitative even if both parties consider them consensual. Polygamy and incest
generally involve exploitation and certainly risk fostering high levels of conflict within a family
setting. Same-gender relationships are not characterized by these problems.
People who fear that accepting same-gender relationships will open the door to all kinds of moral
excess can take comfort in the fact that the New Testament is full of teachings that apply to all
human interaction. Those teachings should guide all intimate unions not matter the gender.
Those teachings call on all of us, straight or gay, to relate to our partners with love, gentleness,
honesty, a spirit of forgiveness, and mutual respect.
16