It is commonplace to hear that “the Bible says clearly that homosexuality is a sin” or some similar derivation of that.
Yet a quick peek into any of the popular translations of the Bible today reveals that ‘homosexuality’ is not empirically in the texts themselves. There is no mention of these ‘sins,’ as is commonly argued.
More to the point, ‘homosexual’ has a rather modern history:
Homosexual (adj.) 1892, in C.G. Chaddock’s translation of Krafft-Ebing’s “Psychopathia Sexualis,” from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos “same” (see same) + Latin-based sexual (see sex).
The noun is first recorded 1912 in Eng., 1907 in French. In technical use, either male or female; but in non-technical use almost always male. Slang shortened form homo first attested 1929. The alternative homophile (1960) was coined in ref. to the homosexual regarded as a person of a particular social group, rather than a sexual abnormality. Homo-erotic first recorded 1916; homophobia is from 1969.
Historically speaking, then, it would have been impossible for the word ‘homosexual’ to appear during the time of the Bible’s writing, since it was first produced in a late nineteenth century book. This is significant because it directly challenges the claim that the “Bible says clearly” anything at all about ‘homosexuality.’
When did ‘homosexuality’ emerge as a problem for evangelical Christians?
To shed some empirical light on this question, I turned to Google’s new “News Archive” search feature. Here I searched for this combination of words: “homosexual + evangelical.” For all the available years, the results look like this:
Pre-1950 = 4 1950-1959 = 29 1990-1992 = 455 1993-1995 = 521 1997-2002 = 1300 2003-2006 = 2190
Before 1959, just over thirty news articles appeared. The frequency of these word pairs is fairly limited. Between 1960 and 1990, however, things started to come together.
What was going on during this time?
Given this officially recognized designation as a class of people, ‘homosexuals,’ started speaking out in the name of ‘Gay rights’ and ‘equality’ for ‘homosexuals.’ Also, the political, moral, economic, and ethical issue of AIDS emerged as a problem in the United States.
Particularly during the late 1970s and 1980s, networks of people identifying themselves as ‘evangelicals’ and ‘fundamentalists’ were politically energized around various politico-religious leaders and issues. To quote Susan Friend Harding, the 1980s saw a “born-again Christian cultural diaspora” that “sent inerrant Bible-believers into the vast professional middle-class reaches of America.”
The diffusion of information networks like the Internet and cable network TV lowered the cost of mass communicating to large national and transnational audiences. Of particular significance, was the rise of televangelism and the birth of an industry of mass marketed Christian products, services and merchandise.
Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States and was heroisized by many right leaning Americans as bringing down the Iron Curtain and pushing the Godless Soviet Union to collapse.
Other conditions undoubtedly were involved in making the expansion possible. The point is that the 1980s saw the conditions made ripe for an explosion of talk about ‘homosexuals’ and ‘evangelicals’ in the news. Thus, the early 1990s saw a precipitous rise in the number of articles.
The point of all this is to say that the politicization of the issue of ‘homosexuality’ is rather new. Being against ‘homosexuality’ is not a Biblical axiom. The Bible says nothing about ‘homosexuality.’ It is a contemporary political topic that many self identified evangelicals talk about and ardently position themselves against. In short, my argument is that ‘homosexuality’ is a contemporary storyline that emerged after WWII and crystallized as an issue for evangelicals in the United States during the late 1970s and 1980s.
(See also “Homosexuality”: The Creative Work of Conservative Evangelicals)
Re: "Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline
Homosexuality is a distortion of nature and God’s intentions for nature. God realized it was not fitting for man to be alone, so he created a female for man. Marriage was intended to be the joining together of male and female flesh as “one:” in a nutshell, sex; it goes much deeper than that also. He designed male and female anatomically compatible for this reason. Homosexuality, in contrast, is a distortion of true marriage.
For example:
“Who, indeed, exchanged away the truth of God for the falsehood, and rendered worship and service unto the creature rather than unto the Creator,—who is blessed unto the ages. Amen! For this cause, God gave them up unto dishonourable passions; for, even their females, exchanged away the natural use into that which is against nature. In like manner also, even the males, leaving the natural use of the female, flamed out in their eager desire one for another, males with males, the indecency, effecting,—and, the necessary recompence of their error, within themselves, duly receiving” (Rom 1:25-27).
Notice how Paul highlights sexual intercourse between man and woman as “natural” and contrasts homosexual intercourse as unnatural, lustful, and vile.
We should not even need to have a Scripture saying, “Homosexuality is sinful,” pure logic suggests so. God created male and female for sexual intercourse for a constructive purpose—reproduction. Homosexuality takes that constructive original purpose and twists it.
Homosexuality is like a man casually walking around on his hands, feet up, instead of on his feet, which were intended to carry him around.
If we start adopting a liberal theology, in which people stop trying to live holy lives—as we will when God restores the Earth—then how can we even call ourselves worthy of a future, perfect, sin-free Earth? The idea is to start getting accustomed to how things will be in the future, since the sinful things of the present will not be included in the holy things of the future.
Take the sex away from a homosexual relationship, and all you have is two buddies sitting together drinking beer and watching football; the former sinful, the latter an expression of platonic friendship.
All that is my current opinion anyway.
Re: "Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline
You’ve asked me to notice that “Paul highlights sexual intercourse between man and woman as ‘natural.’”
On that point we can agree.
But perhaps you should notice that Paul precisely does not say anything about “homosexual intercourse as unnatural, lustful, and vile.”
Paul says nothing about “homosexuality.” As I’ve shown above in my post, Paul couldn’t have used the phrase “homosexuality” or any derivation of that term.
The problem of “homosexuality” is demonstratively a modern cultural construct. It is not a biblical concept.
Re: "Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline
If you cannot see the negative connotations of Paul highlighting the contrast between natural sexuality (man and woman) and unnatural sexuality (man and man, and woman and woman), then take a look at the following verses which further characterize the previous as having negative implications:
“Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful” (Rom 1:29-31).
Let me put it this way. The Scriptures define marriage, in a nutshell, as a physical union (sexual intercourse among other things) between a male and female, becoming “one flesh” (for life). Homosexuality, on the other hand, distorts the Biblical definition of marriage by taking a male and anther male or female and another female and attempting—despite their naturally anatomically incompatibilities—to become one flesh. This is viewed as fornication, as well as casual sex, prostitution, and so on. That is what it comes down to. From Moses’ time, to Paul’s time, even up to modern times, generations have been dealing with the same problems, and all those generations have and should view those problems as abominations and sinful.
If we are going to say, “Oh, never mind, homosexuality is a sin depending on the culture, and is not a sin according to our culture, therefore homosexuality is not sinful.” If you are going to have that view, then you might as well say “Oh, never mind, casual sex is a sin depending on the culture, and is not a sin according to our culture, therefore casual sex is not sinful.” But to the contrast, the Scriptures view them as timeless sins: just as casual sex distorts God’s intentions for marriage to be a life long commitment, so does homosexuality distort God’s intentions for marriage to be between a male and female alone.
Anyway, I am not extremely well versed in this subject and am still learning. Perhaps someone else more up to the challenge can add his or her thoughts?
Re: "Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline
I think we are missing one another like trains passing in the night.
My point is that “homosexuality” is an extra-biblical storyline.
To be clear, I’m not saying that “homosexuality is a sin depending on the culture.” Rather, I’m saying that “homosexuality” is not in the Bible.
For all the verses that you have quoted from the Bible, you have yet to show me where the Bible (any translation) uses the word “homosexuality.” Paul didn’t use the word “homosexuality.” He couldn’t have.
Thus, my point that “homosexuality” is not of the Bible. “Homosexuality” is a concern, a bit of contemporary political baggage, that we pin to the Bible.
Re: "Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline
Certainly the word “homosexuality” is not used in the Bible, but the concept is there, as far as I can tell.
Re: "Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline
If the word “homosexuality” is not in the Bible, why use it?
Why not use the language immanent to the Bible? Why import a contemporary word and speak about it as if it were in the Bible when it clearly is not?
Re: "Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline
Because the word “homosexuality” conveys the concept in the Bible, just as the word “Bible” conveys “Scripture” when the word is not ever used in the Bible.
Re: "Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline
Maybe we should use neither.
Re: "Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline
But we should still speak against or for the concepts the words convey. It is easier to convey those concepts with one word rather than with a definition or more obscure word. I myself prefer the term “Scripture,” but people tend to be more familiar with the term “Bible,” so what ever makes it easier for people to understand.
Re: "Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline
It may well be easier to say “homosexuality” than to stick to the language Paul used. But convenience doesn’t strike me as a cogent justification for sloppiness. More still, perhaps you should rethink your assumption that the word “homosexuality” conveys the meanings that Paul’s words, spoken in their contexts, conveyed. As I tried to show above, it would have been logically impossible for Paul to even consider using “homosexuality.” It is a contemporary word that carries with it a considerable load of political baggage. In some ways, to say the Bible says anything about “homosexuality” is to co-opt it for present day political purposes.
Maybe it would be better if we took Jesus’ commandment to love one another as he loved us to heart. Maybe we should not spend so much time condemning “homosexuals,” blind to the logs in our own eyes, and spend more time showing forgiveness to the strangers that walk among us. Maybe we should discipline our petty political issues and walk in the way of Jesus Christ as disciples of light and life.
Re: "Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline
I agree we should love and accept homosexuals. However, I do think we should make them aware of how “homosexuality”—what Paul conveys about same sex intercourses—is a distortion of God’s plans for nature and sinful.
For example, if there is a prostitute in your Church, you should not kick him or her out, but you should still make him or her aware of why what he or she is doing is sinful.
We are supposed to live a life like Christ and encourage others to do the same. And Christ was not a homosexual or a prostitute because he was completely loyal to God and did not sin.
Also, I do not think homosexuals should be able to lead a Church. I believe pastors, bishops, and so on, should live very holy lives.
Re: "Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline
Jacob makes a good point here. The concept of homosexuality as a loving monogomous relationship could not have been what Paul was talking about so we need to be careful not to subsitute a modern word like “homosexual” with the words of Paul. It is more likely that Paul means extra-marital man-boy relationships that were known in Greek/Roman culture.
Another point is that scripture could NEVER have meant the “Bible” within the text of the Bible because the Bible did not exist when any of the books of the Bible were written. Possibly the later references to scripture in the New Testament could have referenced the Septuagint but that is about as far as you could stretch it. For example, Paul and Timothy’s references to scripture wouldn’t have meant their own letters.
Re: "Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline
I agree with what you said about the Scriptures. Scripture, in my mind, refers to a Holy writing, which is basically what many consider the Bible of today to be.
Concerning homosexuality, the word homosexuality denotes a romantic same sex relationship. A romantic relationship almost always at one point in time involves sex. It is the same sex intercourses that Paul speaks out against.
N.T. Wright explains that homosexuality as we view it today indeed existed long before the time of Christ; such is seen in Plato’s writings.
Paul, in my mind, is speaking out against homosexual intercourses. So if homosexuals can constrain themselves from having sex—a distortion of God’s intentions for true marriage—then that’s fine by me; but almost always sex is involved in a romantic relationship.
Re: "Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline
The concept of homosexuality as a loving monogomous relationship could not have been what Paul was talking about so we need to be careful not to subsitute a modern word like “homosexual” with the words of Paul.
That is a myth. There were monogamous homosexuals in Paul’s world. While it is true that homosexual activity was also a part of various forms of pagan worship, and certain types of pedophilia, there were also forms of homosexuality that were very similar to what we find today. In fact, the homosexual community that isn’t concerned with justifying itself to the church will be the first to point this out.
I’m not saying that this is the end of the debate, but I’m fairly certain that Paul was aware of the kind of homosexuality we’re discussing here, because it was not uncommon in his world, as a reading of secular texts will quickly reveal. It is true that most of the secular texts look down on those who are exclusively homosexual, but the very fact of condemnation proves that it existed. In fact, the Emperor Nero married a man (not that it was a monogamous relationship).
And while we’re on the topic, since when is monogamy a biblical mandate? There does seem to be a preference for monogamy, but nothing close to a mandate. (not that I can understand how someone could take more than one wife without loosing his mind).
Aaron Christianson
Re: "Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline
that is interesting that homophobia existed way back to the time of christ.
is it possible that what is written about in scripture is sins commited thru same sex acts, the same as sins are commited thru opposite sex acts.
would we say that orgies and promiscuous sex among heterosexuals is the essence of heterosexuality. or is it a form of human bonding (finding and appropriate pardner(gen)motivated by mutual attraction, trust,love, and respect to have a committed and shared life with another.
are we to say that the same among same sexes is any less admirable.
no where is god limited to a particular social form to embody his spirit.
im sure we remeber all the passages regarding enuchs.
if we say that we know god’s design arent we crediting ourselves with knowing the mind of god, when we really know we see only in part.
What is the Church called to be and to do?
My dear large-footed friend. Christians are heirs to a story which includes guidelines for human sexuality. It is difficult for me to understand how contradicting that story is faithful to our calling.
Committed monogamous homosexual couples are a challenge to the claim of the Church that "God’s plan" for sex includes heterosexuality, to be sure, but perhaps the solution isn’t instant acceptance of homosexual bonding in the Church, but rather a critical re-assessment of our own sexual practices and sexual culture in light of the homosexual critique.
Scripture must be normative for the emerging church, lest it become an emerging blob. If we are in the biblical story, we must live in the story. If this means there are some uncomfortable tensions between us and the culture, perhaps this is not a bad thing…
I’m still thinking this through.
My two cents.
-Daniel-
Re: "Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline
but “homosexuality” does not convey the concept in the bible you are citing.
homosexuality is a sexual orientation. it is a concept used to discuss the way someone -feels-. it is a concept used to discuss someone’s -urges-. it is a concept regarding -attractions-.
the few and far between biblical exclusions all deal with -actions-. actual sex acts between only men or only women.
the problem with calling these actions “homosexuality” is that we completely blur the line between who a person is, and what a person does. people either are, or they are not, gay.
the problem with the conservative church’s stance on this issue for the last 50-100 years is that it has failed to make this distinction and so marginalizes people from G-d’s grace by insisting that they must somehow repent from and therefore completely alter some fundamental aspect of who they are as a person even if they are perfectly capable of never acting on that aspect of who they are. we do not expect this of -any- other type of person!
i am occasionally attracted to men. i have never once in my life acted on that attraction. i am frequently attracted to women. now that i am married, i only act on that attraction with my wife. i see no evidence in the bible that G-d sees my attractions to women as problematic (unless they become something to dwell on and obsess about and they consume my thoughts and so negatively impact my relationship with my wife) only that G-d expects me to show fidelity to my wife in my -actions- with other women i may encounter. i see no evidence that G-d views same gender attractions any differently. if they become an obsession and a distraction, they are bad, but they are not bad in and of themselves. if there is a biblical exclusion of same gender sex acts that is -not- the same thing as saying that “homosexuality” is wrong.
does that help clarify the confusion in this discussion?
~jhimm — it’s smarter to be lucky than it’s lucky to be smart.
Re: "Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline
Jhimm:
I appreciate your reply and forthrightness. Your post seems to dovetail nicely with mine, in fact.
It is critical that we be cautious to distinguish between a man’s temptations and his actions, not only for veracity’s sake, but as a matter of P.R. (Paul’s theological approach to the men of Athens — “I see in all ways you are very religious” — shows how important P.R. can be, lest any one sneer at it).
I have not been aware in myself of any temptation to become sexually involved with anyone of my same gender. But — and I’m convinced I’m not alone here — I’ve had plenty of other occasions to wrestle with sexual temptation. Had I engaged in sex every time in my life that I experienced sexual appetite, I would not only have broken various statutes, wasted time better used otherwise, and populated a major urban area or two, but I would obviously have sinned several tens of thousands of times. (Always assuming the other person/s was/were willing. More likely, given my rather average charisma, I’d have broken fewer statutes, wasted the same amount of time, contributed to the population rather less, singlehandedly changed the price of lotion through economies-of-scale, and still sinned several tens of thousands of times.)
Again, I think I am not alone here…far from it. So I think that in most or all cases, we Christians are in a position to commiserate with the sexual temptations of anyone. We may say to a person who is tempted to have inappropriate sexual relations — of whatever type — that we can relate to his/her difficulties.
But we can also say that we do not allow our temptations to define us. We should not allow any confusion between temptation and identity; a man tempted to gay sex need not call himself a homosexual any more than a man tempted to tax evasion must call himself a taxcheatual.
And when we say a word against a man’s actions, we must clarify that we discourage sinful choices, but do not condemn a person’s identity except to the degree it is defined by those choices. By saying such things, we may help even our warped culture understand the distinction. Even non-Christians can benefit from the concept of “not allowing your demons to define you.”
Re: "Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline
my understanding about the term homosexuality is that it was a 19th century term born out of the beginnings of the field of psychology, to denote persons of a particular orientation or behavior pattern.
Re: "Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline
I don’t really understand the quibbles here.
As a Christian living all my life among Evangelicals, and a somewhat rightward-leaning Libertarian living all my life among Conservatives, I have never known even one Evangelical Conservative to say that “being tempted to have sex with a person of the same gender is a sin.” I have known them all to say, “having sex with a person of the same gender is a sin” and that, by extension, “fantasizing about having sex with a person of the same gender is also a sin.”
If you get these Conservatives or Evangelicals talking quickly, you’ll find they will be inexact and use the term “homosexuality” in the above context. But when you ask them to slow down and clarify and be exact, they always (and I mean *uniformly*, in my experience) say that by “homosexuality” they mean the practice of having/pursuing sexual relations with persons of the same gender.
So, okay, the word “homosexuals,” used as a group identity, is non-scriptural. And certainly hateful attitudes toward a group on the basis of their identity (as opposed to love toward them on the basis of their individuality) is non-scriptural.
But surely, had Paul been introduced to the term “homosexuals,” he would merely have defined that term as referring to “The set of all persons who are tempted to have sex with persons of the same gender and who, when tempted, decide to acquiesce rather than resist, and are unrepentant thereafter.”
So it’s hard to see the purpose of the quibbling. Is the point of the thread only to clarify that the term is extra-Biblical and anachronistic, though the concept is neither? Respectfully, it seems a smallish point to make.