The Bible Tells Me So

I am in favor of becoming a Reconciling Congregation because of the Bible, not in spite of it. One of my father’s professors as Yale Divinity School, Roland Bainton used the distinction between precedence and principle in biblical interpretation. Precedence is any single event or verse which is lifted from its context and given unqualified authority. One could, for example use the words of Jesus to the rich man, “go and sell all you own and give it to the poor” as a definitive mandate for everyone to do just that. Looking at precedence the people who owned slaves had the Bible on their side. To look for principles in biblical interpretation is to see texts as imbedded in a larger story – in the Old Testament it is the story of the people of Israel and their covenant with God. In the New Testament it is the story of Jesus – let us not forget that biblically Jesus is the Word of God, not the Bible.

I have heard that at one of the meetings to watch the video The Bible Tells Me So sponsored by the Open Hearts Committee it was requested that I share about specific texts in the Bible that are often used to condemn homosexuality. (Confession: I have not seen the video so this may all be a repeat for those who saw it.) One of the things we will see is that these texts are used as precedence and not principle.

Leviticus 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

This is the text from the Old Testament that is used most often. It seems direct and conclusive, but then so much of Leviticus does. The Law, the Holiness Code in Leviticus comprises the details of living in covenant with God – 613 of them, to be exact. An important part of that covenant was for the people of Israel to survive, multiply and prosper. To do this they needed offspring. Essentially, women were seen as incubators – men put there seed in them and women gave birth to children, male children, preferably. To use that seed outside of that purpose was seen as a violation of the covenant. Onan was condemned for “spilling his seed upon the ground.” Notice there is no mention of women lying with women – they may not have cared. Furthermore, to view this verse as authoritative and not the rest of Leviticus is problematic. Eating pork is also termed an abomination, as well as many other things. Women were considered unclean while menstruating – and they were segregated. When a woman gives birth to a boy she is considered unclean for seven days, if it is a girl it’s two weeks. One cannot pick and choose and when we do that is when we abuse the Bible.

Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah

Because the story contains a threat for men to “know” other men it is viewed as a condemnation of all homosexual activity. But the story is not about homosexuality. It is much more about hospitality, and the lack of it. Two “angels” come into town and Lot shows them hospitality by inviting them into his home. The people of Sodom already don’t like Lot because he is an alien. They are angry and surround his house threatening to rape the visitors. Lot will not let them out. Instead he offers his two virgin daughters in their place (now there’s precedence for you!). More important than the gender of those to be harmed is the spirit of violence in the people – that spirit of violence is the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Violence toward strangers is also a violation of the covenant, whoever they are.

Genesis 1:27: …male and female God created them.

“God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” goes the quip, witty and cute. That God created men and women is often seen as reason enough to support our understanding of marriage between a man and a woman. The truth is, the Bible doesn’t have a lot of good to say about marriage, at least as we envision it. In the Old Testament men had numerous wives and fathered children by slaves. In the New Testament Paul instructs the nascent followers of Jesus to marry only if they can’t control themselves but it is better to stay single like him. Procreating was the issue, not sexual orientation.

Romans 1:26-27: 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. Men committed shameless acts with men and received their own persons the due penalty for their error.

This is the numero uno text for the condemnation of homosexuality. As precedence it is clear; in context is less so. It was the habit of men to visit temple prostitutes, many of whom were boys – this was the kind of homosexuality they knew. Speaking of precedence, there was none for a committed relationship between persons of the same gender. On the face of things, Paul likely did view homosexuality as perverse, but how he would have viewed a covenantal same sex relationship we just can’t say. “For this reason…” refers to the impurity of their hearts in general. The mention of homosexuality is an example of that impurity. If one reads on there is a longer list: They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventers of evil, rebellious towards parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. Then at the beginning of chapter two Paul says this, ironically: Therefore you have not excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. When using precedence in the Bible one often doesn’t read on. What Paul is addressing is rebellion against God, in any form. One way in which to rebel against God is expressed sexually. But that sort of rebellion is not about homosexuality, it is about “hypersexuality.” It is when sexuality becomes a selfish act, outside of love or care, outside of any covenant, with little or no regard for others. I feel that the greater evil of visiting the temple prostitutes was not their gender but that they were likely children and it was not consensual. “Friends with benefits” is more dangerous to the fabric of our society that two women living in covenant with each other for 25 years!

Again, we must read the Bible looking for principle and not precedence. The word for “Word” in the Gospel according to John as in the “Word of God” is Logos, and it can be translated in numerous ways: mind, thought, spirit and also principle. One could as easily translate the first verse of John saying, “The Principle was with God and the Principle was God.” And that “principle” is, once again, Jesus. And if Jesus is about anything it is love.

An overarching principle of the OT is covenant: God’s covenant with the people of Israel. It is clear that it is in and through covenant that the Spirit of God works. I believe this about the covenants we make in our lives – covenants with our children, in our church and when we marry. To extend covenant to all people seems to me to be terribly biblical. In the NT love is an essential principle. If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels but do not have love…what am I? And who wrote that? The same person who wrote chapter one of Romans. To take the Bible seriously we have to think about that. This is a brief clarification of the texts used to condemn homosexuality, and an example of what I think it means to take the Bible seriously. There is much more to say and if anyone has questions I welcome them. P.Jim