Few issues are as divisive as homosexuality and transgenderism in the Church, today. This is an unfortunate circumstance, but one that needs to be addressed. Most efforts to discuss LGBTQ+ from a theological perspective come from an authoritative approach, not from the perspective of a disciple of Christ. Yet this perspective is crucial because, regardless of an individual’s position in the Church hierarchy, we are all just disciples. We would do well to remain humble in that role.
Jesus did not call his followers to be authorities but to follow him, based on the example he set. Those set apart as apostles, presbyters, deacons, etc., were not given special authority; they were commissioned to preserve and spread the Gospel. This is evident in Jesus’ proclamation:
So Jesus called them and said to them, “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”
Mark 10:42-45
Here, Jesus is clear about the role of leaders in the Church. Paul, also, says:
Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written:
“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall give praise to God.”So then, each of us will be accountable to God.
Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another.
Romans 14:10-13
Here, Paul is very explicit. We do not have the authority to judge others, much less to declare particular behaviors and choices right or wrong. The position of the apostle expressed, here, is important to keep in mind. Paul does not believe he, nor any other person, has the authority to declare anything “good” or “evil” — judgment is the express right of God, alone. This presents a problem when Paul’s writing is used as authoritative on the disposition of specific actions. If Paul, himself, believed he had no authority to judge, how could he have — in the very same letter, no less — declared particular actions “good” or “bad”? The answer is that he isn’t; he’s using those actions as examples that would have been readily understood in the context of the time and place he was writing. This will be addressed further, below.
What Jesus did charge his disciples and apostles with was following the example he, himself, set. This example is very simple, and very straight forward: love unconditionally. By qualifying this as “unconditional,” Jesus is asking us to set aside all of our prejudices and preconceptions of right and wrong, social hierarchy and custom, interpretation of the Law, our ego, and our own judgments of others. None of that matters. What does matter is that we have compassion and empathy for others, regardless of these things.
This does not mean trying to subtly interject our own opinions in acts of compassion (“You do you, but I still think such-and-such is sinful”) or finding loopholes that legitimize hateful behavior (“Love the sinner, hate the sin”). This means setting aside any differences — not even acknowledging their existence — and loving all equally. Loving unconditionally means that we must allow people to live their lives, whether we approve of their choices and lifestyle, or not.
In the New Testament
There are three instances where homosexuality is mentioned in the New Testament: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11. How we approach these verses is critical. In the latter two cases, word study becomes critical. In the excerpt from Romans, we must be mindful not to miss the forest for its trees.
Words Mean Things
My wife often tells our children, “Words mean things.” While this may seem obvious — or even pedantic — it is important to remind children that words carry more weight than we often think about in their situational use. This can go either way: we may use a more general term for something very specific, or a very specific term when we are really discussing things more generally. In either case, this leads to a misunderstanding. This happens with scripture, too. In fact, it is one of the shortcomings of translations.
In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians and the pseudo-Pauline epistle to Timothy, the word often translated as “homosexual” is ἀρσενοκοίταις. This is not an easy term to parse in this context. It comes from “ἀρσεν” (“male”) and “κοίτη” (“to lay with”), but it is not a common term. Based on its sparse use in other contexts, it is best translated as “contrary to nature” or “having unnatural morals.” To add to the confusion, the way Paul uses this term — if it is taken to mean “laying with a man” — would also convict women in a heterosexual relationship of sin as the subject of the term is universal. As such, there are some problems with this interpretation.
One suggestion, which is popular among scholars and theologians, is that Paul is referring to pederasty. In the Hellenic world, it was not uncommon for men to take younger boys in an apprenticeship and make sexual exploration part of their formation. This was not uncommon (and certainly more common than romantic relationships between same-gendered pairs). As such, this could very well be the intended meaning.
Yet, the implication of “acting contrary to nature” is intriguing, and I think this deserves more attention.
Unnatural Inclinations
In his epistle to the Romans, Paul is a bit more explicit. He clearly describes women exchanging “natural intercourse for unnatural” and men “giving up natural intercourse with women” to pursue “passion for one another.” Paul is describing things that are “unnatural” — that is, they go against the natural order that God ordained for the world. This depth is important, because it allows us to move past Paul’s limited human comprehension, towards a more useful perennial interpretation of the scripture. It also connects us back to the meaning of “ἀρσενοκοίταις,” above.
Paul is not condemning non-heterosexual behavior because he views it as inherently wrong, in itself; to him, this behavior is wrong because he views it as contrary to nature. This was pretty common in Paul’s time; Paul is using this common example of his time to make his deeper point: acting against God’s Will is the source of sin and wickedness.
This might be a little confusing. Think of it this way: if people in Paul’s day weren’t under the impression that homosexuality was unnatural, Paul would still have written this admonishment of acting unnaturally, but it would have been exemplified by a different behavior.
This, of course, leads to questions about the authority and interpretation of Scripture, which are due a separate discussion of their own. Nonetheless, it is worth pointing out that this need not deplete the value of scripture in any way. It does, however, require that we acknowledge a human element. Although the authors were writing under divine inspiration, they were still humans trying to convey — in terms other humans would understand — those things which, by nature, defy expression. As such, human influence (with all of its possible flaws) is bound to creep in at times; divine inspiration is not synonymous with divine omniscience. The latter is the express property of God, alone. We will return to this in the next section.
In recent years, science has proven an impressive tool for developing a deeper understanding of God’s creation. One point of clarity that science has provided is that homosexuality, transgenderism, queerness, etc., are not unnatural at all. These behaviors are observed throughout the animal kingdom and have been linked with very real neurological and genetic phenomena. As such, Paul was not wrong in his point — we must be cautious of contradicting God’s Will by acting unnaturally — but Paul’s example was wrong; being gay is natural.
This is a good time to reassess the demands of heteronormativity, in light of Paul’s deeper point and scientific discovery. We know, contrary to common knowledge in Paul’s day, that homosexuality is not unnatural, so Paul’s chosen example to convey his message was a poor choice. We also know that it is unnatural for any person to act contrary to their God-given identity. While being gay, itself, is natural and not sinful, demanding that LGBTQ+ individuals deny their God-given inclinations for the sake of conforming to social norms is inherently sinful.
Not only does this demand encourage a person to act in direct opposition to the person God made them to be — for the sake of making xenophobic individuals more “comfortable,” no less! — it violates the natural hierarchy between humankind and God. As humans, we have no authority to judge our peers; by taking it upon ourselves to judge a person for their behavior, we are elevating ourselves to the role of judge. This is, of course, dangerous and blasphemous.
Paul made a mistake. That doesn’t mean the deeper point he was trying to make is wrong, nor that his work is wholly invalidated by it. That biblical texts are prone to human error, likewise, does not detract from their value. In fact, I would argue that it adds to it. But that is a discussion for another time.
In the Old Testament
The most comprehensive prohibitions on homosexuality are found in Leviticus 20. And just like we discovered with Paul, the Mosaic law has instances of “human intervention.” Unlike Paul, however, these human faux pas are not limited to poor choices of example. While Moses, like Paul, may have had the best intentions, his amendments go so far as to wholly change God’s decrees. Jesus, himself, points this out:
But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart [Moses] wrote this command for you.
Mark 10:5
Here, Jesus bluntly states that a passage in the Mosaic Law is entirely Moses’ own invention. We must also acknowledge that, like Paul’s detailed examples in the New Testament, the precepts of Mosaic Law are likely meant to exemplify an otherwise abstract “meta law.” These commandments need to be understood and considered in context, not treated as absolute, immutable, and self-contained decrees. They are examples of conduct that conforms to God’s Will, in the context of the time and place they were written.
This is best understood by considering another point Jesus makes:
[Jesus] said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Matthew 23:37-40
Jesus was able to summarize the whole of “the law and the prophets” simply by saying “love God with all your heart and soul and love your neighbor as yourself.” If each specific law of the Old Testament — all 613 commandments contained therein — were an objective, absolute precept, this summary would not be possible. In order for Jesus’ words to be true, those 613 commandments can only be treated as temporally and culturally relevant examples of what it means to love God and love your neighbor.
Other examples Moses provides include:
- Dietary laws (Kashrut) that prohibit eating pork and shellfish and require separating meats and dairy.
- Shabbat observance that prohibits most activity from sunset Friday until sunset Saturday.
- Ritual purity laws dealing with menstruation and contact with the dead.
- Condemning adulterers and blasphemers to death by stoning.
- Legitimization of slavery in certain conditions.
Needless to say, most modern people (Jewish and Gentile, alike) do not follow these laws today; they are seen as archaic and outmoded. Many Christians — even of the fundamentalist variety — are keen to assert that Jesus “cancelled out” the Mosaic Law, and this is not wholly inaccurate. But we also cannot cherry-pick the Old Testament precepts we want to be true and throw away those we don’t like. We must concede that they are either all divine laws that must be adhered to under all circumstances, or they are all outdated examples of a deeper principle of righteousness. If the latter be the case, we must take this further and acknowledge that they are contextually relevant to time and place, reflecting what ancient Jewish custom believed to be righteous behavior. But that doesn’t mean the underlying message — to love God and love your neighbor — is invalid.
Just as Paul, several centuries later, would attempt to express the incomprehensible through example (among other devices), so too was Moses’ provision of over six hundred precepts. In both cases, the long lists of commandments, laws, restrictions, and other declarations are not absolute statements of what it means to be righteous. They are the rational deductions of individuals, informed both by cultural context and Divine inspiration, of what behaviors reflect the incomprehensible love and humility of the only true commandments: love God with all your heart and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself.
Additional Implications
The implications of this assessment extend far beyond the singular subject of homosexuality. They set a precedent for how we, as Christians, are to treat the wider LGBTQ+ community (spoiler: we’re to treat them exactly the same as everyone else), and exemplify a higher order of moral reasoning that prioritizes the spirit of the law over its letter.
[God] has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
2 Corinthians 3:6
Concerning Transgenderism
The above-mentioned prohibition against unnatural behavior also upholds the right of trans people to be who they really are. If transsexuality is natural (which, again, science does indicate to be the case), there is no sin in being trans. However, insisting transgendered people must deny their own natural, God-given inclinations to transition is demanding that these individuals act contrary to God’s Will.
Dissenters often say “God doesn’t make mistakes; he made you a man and that’s how you should stay” but this is erroneous. God also lays our lives out before us to shape us through the struggles we must overcome. By insisting a trans person not rise to this calling is to prevent them from becoming who God wants them to be. If we were all born fully formed with no need to grow, there would be no purpose for the challenges God sets before each of us. Even Jesus had to endure struggles of formation in his youth.
Concerning Hermeneutics
A constant point in this exegesis revolves around how Scripture should be understood. Previously, it was suggested that the interpretation of Paul’s writing as an absolute condemnation of LGBTQ+ lifestyle results directly from a superficial, literal reading of his work. Despite the growth of this approach in modern times (beginning with fundamentalism in the late 19th century), early interpreters dating back to the Apostolic Fathers suggests a more nuanced interpretation.
In his letter to the Ephesians (16.1), Ignatius actually makes a direct reference to the very verses in 1 Corinthians that were discussed above. In Ignatius’ writing, however, we do not find a condemnation of homosexuality, but a condemnation of “those who adulterously corrupt households.” Ignatius reprises this interpretation in his letter to the Philadelphians (3.3), in which he interprets Paul’s words to be a reference of those “who hold alien views.” Both of Ignatius’ adaptations of Paul’s words support a general discussion of defying the natural order of things, rather than an absolute condemnation of a particular behavior.
This opens a door to questions about hermeneutics that go beyond the scope of the present discussion, although directly related to it. As the world changes, and our understanding of God’s creation grows, we are pushed to continually reconsider and reinterpret scripture. It is critical to remember that sacred writings and living documents. They are meant to have a perennial relevance to all people, everywhere, at all times. As we move further away from the world that produced these texts, therefore, we must dig deeper for the true messages hidden beneath the social and cultural “packaging” in which they are contained.
To that end, we must pray continually and allow the Spirit to guide our interpretation. We must avoid getting hung up on literalism and discrepancies between scripture and science that might distract our hearts and minds from perceiving the deeper wisdom of sacred texts. We must both learn to understand the texts in the context of the world they were written in, as well as to excavate the deeper meaning within them as we look toward the future and build our understanding of God and Creation.
Peace +
Leave a Reply