"You ought to have your head examined." "What were you thinking?" Such expressions are used in American culture to express incredulity at the actions of another who puts him or herself needlessly at risk. Surely such expressions are never more apropos than when a seminary professor writes a book about the Bible passages that deal with homosexuality and the interpretation of these texts, and especially when one does so from the perspective taken in this book.
The reasons for calling into question the good sense of such a person are readily apparent. The debate now raging on the subject of homosexuality in the church and the wider culture is nothing short of fierce. To jump into the fray with both feet is to invite attack, often vicious attack. One can hardly be surprised by this volatile state of affairs. Simply put, sex matters. The powerful mating instinct built into the human species, with its enormous potential for both pleasure and pain, consumes an extraordinary amount of our time and energy as we attempt to figure out how to satisfy it and domesticate it, with whom and when, so as to maximize pleasure and minimize pain to ourselves and others. The mating instinct can be harnessed to build families, contribute to a stable and nurturing society generally, and promote happiness; but it can also destroy these social goods. Consequently, much is at stake on nearly any issue involving sexual ethics.
In the cultural, political, religious, and academic arenas of our lives, issues related to homosexuality and homosexual persons are pervasive and hotly contested. Protests and counterprotests over the portrayal of homosexuals in the media seem constant. Public and private policy debates rage about such issues as antidiscrimination laws regarding housing and employment; hate-crime legislation; statutes that redefine marriage and/or grant domestic partner status to homosexual couples; educational and training programs that promote tolerance and diversity; the public support for the arts; qualifications for military service; and allocations for AIDS research. The church—local congregations and denominational bodies—divides because of fierce disagreements about the status of homosexual Christians, their relationships, and their qualifications for ministry. One side appeals to the explicit statements in Scripture regarding same-sex intercourse, the structures of Gods creation, principles of sexual holiness, two millennia of church tradition, the influence of environment on the development of homosexuality, the dearth of long-term and monogamous homosexual relationships, and the negative health effects of homosexual behavior. The other side points to genetic causation, the fruit of caring homosexual relationships, the antiquated worldview and obsolescence of other parts of Scripture, and such Christian virtues as tolerance and inclusion. In the academy today, speaking one's mind is especially perilous for those who question the morality of same-sex intercourse. Opposing intolerance of the sexual practices of others functions as a badge of intellectual open-mindedness and membership among the avant-garde of cultured society—part of a cherished self-perception of being on the "cutting edge." There is an undeniable, built-in bias among many of the intellectual elite against advocates of traditional sexual values. Attitudes toward homosexuality cohere with this wider bias. It is into this context that I put forward my own best argument, well aware of the risks.
In the politics of personal destruction, the first risk is to be labeled homophobic, a label which conveys the impression of a psychiatric disorder. This label is employed as part of an overall strategy of intimidation to forestall genuine debate and belittle vocal dissenters. Moral disapproval of sinful behavior, of behaviors that are destructive to individuals and/or society, or contrary to God's will, is different from fear and must be distinguished if the conversation is to proceed.
A second risk is that of being labeled intolerant, perhaps applied as a global descriptor of personhood and not just with respect to a negative stance toward same-sex intercourse. It is important to be clear about the definition of tolerance and its place among Christian virtues. While tolerance may be a virtue in many instances, love holds a superior place in a Christian worldview (1 Cor 13:13). Love and tolerance overlap but are not identical concepts. The Bible describes a God who loves the entire world but does not tolerate sin. In fact, in the few instances when words that could be translated as tolerance or intolerance occur in the biblical text, they generally appear in contexts that condemn tolerance of wickedness and immorality in the midst of God's people. Rev 2:20 is a case in point: "But I have this against you: you tolerate (apheis) that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice fornication (porneusai) and to eat food sacrificed to idols" (NRSV).1 Of course, the scant positive use of tolerance and tolerate in English translations does not mean that the concept of tolerance receives little play in the Bible. Jesus' injunction against judging (Luke 6:37) and his chastisement of hypocrites who were eager to take the speck out of another's "eye" but blind to the log in their own (Luke 6:41-42)2 are two texts that come quickly to mind. Nor is the Bible itself immune from the criticism of intolerance at specific points. Nevertheless, the biblical data should give a person pause before trumpeting tolerance as the central Christian or biblical virtue. Toleration of immoral sexual practices was a vice, not a virtue. So, rather than elevate tolerance to the highest position, one might do better to lift up one of the Christian virtues that Paul cites as fruits of the Spirit in Gal 5:22-23: "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith/faithfulness, gentleness, and selfcontrol." Unlike the word tolerance, none of these virtues implies any reduction of moral resolve against sinful behavior. If same-sex intercourse is indeed sin, then an appeal to tolerance is largely misplaced.
Third, critics of homosexual behavior risk being labeled exclusive and resistant to diversity. As with the use of the words tolerant and intolerant, such labels obscure the real conflict; namely, whether one determines that the behavior in question is sinful/harmful or not. No one on either side of the homosexuality debate wants to be inclusive of harmful behavior or widen diversity to include sin.
A fourth risk taken by biblical scholars or theologians who write anything critical of homosexual behavior is that of being labeled uncritical. However, critical scholarship by no means leads in a straight line to the conclusion that the biblical texts condemning same-sex intercourse ought to be dismissed, though some seem to presume this as a matter of course. Most people in the church mean by critical that one cannot read everything the Bible says at face value. In other words, the text must be read through a hermeneutical lens, the ancient context and contemporary currents must be considered, and some measure of openness must be given to the possibility that a given author or authors of a biblical text may be reflecting personal or cultural biases. With this approach I am in basic agreement. However, on this issue, as on any other, if a clear, unequivocal, and pervasive stance in the Bible can be shown to exist—across the Testaments and accepted for nearly two millennia of the church's existence—then the burden of proof lies with those in the church who take a radically different approach to the issue. In any case, uncritical scholarship in the use of the Bible is not restricted to any one side of the theological spectrum.
Fifth, others may accuse scholars who publicly question the morality of homosexual behavior of holding on to outmoded moral standards or primitive understandings of sexuality. But such labels beg the question of how one knows what is outmoded. Is something outmoded simply because it has a long pedigree? To the contrary, the antiquity and durability of a given prohibition against immoral conduct often indicates its workability, effectiveness, and elasticity as a cultural model rather than its contemporary irrelevance.
Sixth, some may contend that writing a book such as this risks endowing the homosexuality debate with unmerited importance. Of course we all lament the amount of time, energy, and resources that has been expended on the issue. Apparently, however, people on the whole feel that the one thing worse than having church and society devote such great efforts to the issue is giving up and allowing the other side to control all policy, public and private, secular and religious. The amount of attention devoted to the homosexuality debate is related not just to the importance of the issue (in the Bible and empirically) but to the absence of a clear consensus from which to formulate policy decisions, and the fact that a fundamental shift in attitudes hangs in the balance.
Finally, some will charge that a book such as this promotes violence against homosexuals, even though readers of this book receive not the slightest encouragement to be anything less than loving in personal dealings with homosexuals. While antihomosexual violence deserves to be vigorously denounced, it does nobody any good to ignore the dangerous way in which isolated and relatively rare incidents of violence against homosexuals have been exploited to stifle freedom of speech and coerce societal endorsement of homosexual practice. Four points are pertinent here. First, if proponents of same-sex intercourse really have a paramount interest in curtailing acts of violence against homosexuals, the best thing for them to do is to hold up models of civil discourse among people who oppose same-sex intercourse. Second, a lesson can be learned from the tradition of Jesus' reaction to the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53-8:11, ironically a favorite proof text for Christians who advocate the acceptance of homosexual behavior. In the story, Jesus does not back down in his opposition to adultery despite the fact that adulterous women in Israel faced the prospect of mob violence; he calls adultery a sin and commands the woman to change her ways (8:11). His solution is not to tolerate adultery but to make a distinction between the community's assessment of the act as immoral and the application of the death penalty. Third, there is no end to the lands of moral discourse that can be squelched when the distinction between polite but critical rhetoric on the one hand and violent extremists on the other is ignored.3 By that same logic, for example, the United States in the nineteenth century should have endorsed the practice of polygamy in order to avoid violence against polygamists. Fourth, statistically more significant than hate crimes against homosexuals are the harmful effects of various forms of homosexual behavior on homosexuals themselves: serious health risks (such as AIDS) associated with anal intercourse and rampant promiscuity; "pick-up murders," in which a gay man kills an anonymous sex partner; and high rates of domestic violence and sadomasochism among homosexual couples. Societal tolerance of homosexual practice results in a higher incidence of experimentation with bisexual and homosexual practice among youth, with all its attendant negative side effects. None of this even touches the negative effects that homosexual behavior can have on a person's relationship with God. One may then ask, which is the more humane rhetoric? Rhetoric that out of a sense of compassion fosters same-sex intercourse, or rhetoric that out of a sense of compassion rejects same-sex intercourse while promoting kindness to homosexuals and management of homoerotic impulses?
Acknowledging Personal Regrets
In recent years, as an occasional speaker in church forums I have been involved on a small scale in the debate over ordaining "selfaffirming, practicing" homosexuals. Often at such forums there are moving presentations both by those who have "come out of the closet" to proclaim that their homosexuality is part of God's good creation, and by those who have gone one step further by coming out of the homosexual lifestyle. The homosexuality debate is generally not pleasant for those who speak out publicly against homosexual behavior—at least it has never been for me. Not only does it leave one vulnerable to the host of stereotypes treated above and position one squarely against the cultural norms prevailing in most of the media, academy, and secular establishment, but it also forces one to uphold standards of righteousness when keenly aware of one's own imperfections and need for grace. It also compels one to emphasize the negative and define boundaries rather than to discuss more uplifting core elements of the faith.
Perhaps worst of all is the knowledge that a rigorous critique of same-sex intercourse can have the unintended effect of bringing personal pain to homosexuals, some of whom are already prone to selfloathing. This is why it needs to be emphatically stated that to feel homosexual impulses does not make one a bad person. I deplore attempts to demean the humanity of homosexuals. Whatever one thinks about the immorality of homosexual behavior, or about the obnoxiousness of elements within the homosexual lobby, homosexual impulses share with all other sinful impulses the feature of being an attack on the "I" or inner self experiencing the impulses (Rom 7:14-25). The person beset with homosexual temptation should evoke our concern, sympathy, help, and understanding, not our scorn or enmity. Even more, such a person should kindle a feeling of solidarity in the hearts of all Christians, since we all struggle to properly manage our erotic passions. A homosexual impulse, while sinful, cannot take shape as accountable sin in a person's life unless one acquiesces to it. Thus a reasoned denunciation of homosexual behavior and all other attempts at nurturing and justifying homosexual passions is not, and should not be construed as, a denunciation of those victimized by homosexual urges, since the aim is to rescue the true self created in God's image for a full life.
Still, a distinction in one's head and a distinction in one's heart are two different things. For homosexuals a denunciation of homosexuality may feel like an indictment of homosexuals. Regrettably, some of this pain may be unavoidable in the hope of doing away with the greater pain of living outside of God's redemptive plan. There can be no healthy transformation so long as homosexuals live in a world of unreality, including the unreality of false notions about Scripture's view of homosexuality. When a homosexual holds out hope that something in the teachings of Jesus or in the Bible generally speaks positively about same-sex erotic unions, naturally there is going to be disappointment and sadness upon the discovery that nothing of the sort exists. One is reminded here of Paul's sober retrospect on his "tearful letter" to the Corinthian believers:
For though I grieved you in the letter, I do not continue to have regrets—though I used to have regrets, for I see that letter (though only for a short time) grieved you. Now I rejoice, not because you were grieved but because you were grieved into repenting. For you were grieved in a godly manner (lit., in accordance with God), in order that you would in no way be caused loss or damage by us. For a godly grief (lit., a grief in accordance with God) produces a repentance which leads to a salvation free of all regret; but the grief of the world produces death. (2 Cor 7:8-10)
For Paul, causing the Corinthian community sorrow was not the objective. Indeed, Paul regretted that they had to feel any sorrow at all, though from Paul's perspective it was unavoidable. The objective was rather to wake up the Corinthians to the seriousness of the matter at hand so that the end result might be something greater than emotional tranquillity: the salvation of those involved.
Three Generic Reasons for Speaking Out
For me, there are three generic reasons for speaking out against same-sex intercourse which override the personal risks. The first two have to do with the two commandments of the law singled out by Jesus as the greatest—two principles on which every ethical decision should be based. The third has to do with the urgency of the time.
First, regarding the vertical dimension to human existence, devotion to God ought to take precedence over every other consideration: "You shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might" (Deut 6:5; cited in Mark 12:30, 33 par.). The whole of what we do and who we are should proceed from a desire to please the sovereign God who created humankind and is working to redeem it. Jesus' vision of God's kingdom or reign involves a transcendent reality above and yet to come, a reality that God's people are called on to seek and to pray for beyond all else. Of course such assumptions about God's reign do not settle once and for all which side of the issue one should come down on as regards homosexuality. However, I am persuaded that to love God with one's whole being and to pray for the coming of God's rule entails submitting one's pursuit of sexual pleasure to the revealed will of God. To suppose that God does not have much interest in regulating the human sex drive, one of the most powerful and potentially destructive human impulses, is both counter-intuitive and in direct conflict with Scripture. From a Judeo-Christian standpoint, it is a truncated vision of reality to accept various forms of sexuality merely because the participants involved give their consent to a given sex act. The first consideration must always be what God wants. God calls us to live holy lives subject to the divine will and not according to our own desires. In my view, the Bible, though not the only witness to God's will and not immune to hermeneutical scrutiny, is the single most important element for discerning that will. As I will argue, the Bible speaks unequivocally and forcefully to the issue of homosexuality.
Second, regarding the horizontal dimension of human existence, it matters how humans act in relation to one another. Here the definitive injunction is to "love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18; cited in Mark 12:31, 33 par.; Matt 5:43; 19:19; Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8). Jesus in the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37) expanded the meaning of neighbor (rêaka = a companion from one's kinship group, a fellow Israelite) to embrace anyone whom one would want to act like a neighbor to oneself in one's own hour of greatest need, including enemies, aliens, and outcasts.4 Jesus interpreted love to mean doing to other people whatever you would want them to do to you (the Golden Rule, Luke 6:31 par.). Such love demands an aggressive search for the lost and their reintegration into the sphere of God's redemptive work.
In contemporary society the command to love is often misconstrued as tolerance and acceptance. The concept is richer than that. True love "does not rejoice over unrighteousness but rejoices with the truth" (1 Cor 13:6). The immediate context of the love commandment in Lev 19:18 underscores the moral dimension of love:
You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall firmly reprove your fellow-countryman and so not incur guilt because of him. You shall not take revenge and you shall not hold a grudge against any of your people and you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am Yahweh. (Lev 19:17-18)
Love and reproof are not mutually exclusive concepts. If one fails to reprove another who is engaged in self-destructive or community destructive behavior, or any conduct deemed unacceptable by God, one can hardly claim to have acted in love either to the perpetrator or to others affected by the perpetrators actions. Without a moral compass love is mere mush. Without taking into account God's will for holy living, love turns into affirmation of self-degrading and other-degrading conduct. This means that true love of one's neighbor does not embrace every form of consensual behavior. What constitutes an expression of love to one's neighbor depends significantly on how one assesses the benefit or harm of the neighbor's behavior. If indeed homosexual behavior is sin and an obstacle to the fullness of life available in Christ, then the church has an obligation both to protect the church from the debilitating effect of sanctioned immorality and to protect the homosexual for whom more is at stake than the satisfaction of sensual impulses. If a person is about to touch a live wire or encourage others to do so, it is not a kindness to affirm that person s behavior or to remain silent. In my opinion, despite the best of intentions by many heterosexual champions of same-sex erotic unions, affirming homosexual behavior is not the loving thing to do, either for the church and society as a whole or for homosexuals. Love for one's neighbor requires one to speak out against such behavior, sometimes firmly. Godly love is responsible love.
The third justification for speaking out is the urgency of the time we live in. The window of opportunity for speaking out against homosexual behavior is closing. Nothing less than intellectual integrity, free speech, and a potentially irreversible change in the morality of mainline denominations are at stake in this vital area of sexual ethics. Many homosexuals are not out to foist acceptance of their behavior on the public but are simply people with hurting souls who need our sympathy and understanding help. Many heterosexuals who see nothing inherently wrong with homosexual behavior are tolerant of those who disagree. Yet a growing number of zealous crusaders for gay "rights" are working hard to stifle vocal disagreement with the homosexual agenda by fostering a public characterization of those who refuse to go along as reactionary, dangerous characters (on a par with racists or misogynists), even exerting institutional pressure to fire, not hire or license, or retard the promotion of vocal dissenters.
Personal Reasons for Speaking Out
The three reasons given above for speaking out against homosexual behavior can be generic to anyone who views such behavior as harmful or contrary to God's will. In addition to these reasons, my own particular interest in the subject derives from personal relationships with homosexuals in the church, some of whom have struggled with their homosexual urges (successfully or not), others of whom have not struggled. Of these interactions three stand out.
While I was an undergraduate at Dartmouth College in the late-1970s, a Christian student who had been attending the student fellowship group of which I was a member "came out of the closet." He no longer made a secret of his homosexual orientation and now affirmed his intent to engage in sexual relations with other males. No direct action was ever taken by the student fellowship group, but their stance on homosexuality was fairly evident, and the student of his own accord soon tapered off, and later ended, his participation. I had a conversation with him shortly after he had "come out." I simply tried to listen to him, to extend love. He saw no need to struggle with his homosexual impulses any longer because, at least in part, he was receiving affirmation from the official Dartmouth community to celebrate his homosexuality. Why not choose the path of least resistance, particularly when one is receiving praise for doing so? We graduated and went our separate ways. The fact that he had attended the same Christian group, as well as the perceptible impact that the homosexual lobby on campus had on him, made the interaction memorable.
Later, as a graduate student at Harvard Divinity School, I became involved in a church that had a ministry to people struggling with homosexual impulses. There I became friends with a man who had stopped pursuing sexual relations with other men and had married a Christian woman. As a child, he had experienced his father to be a cold and distant personality. He had difficulty feeling like "one of the boys" and shied away from typically male forms of socialization. Now, with the help of counseling, he had found contentment in a committed heterosexual relationship. In times of high stress, his same-sex desires would reemerge, yet he remained faithful to his wife, much like any heterosexual person who, in marriage, is committed to keeping his/her vows but remains susceptible to temptation through unsolicited sexual desires. To me he is an example of sober hope for those struggling with their homosexuality.
Recently I had the opportunity to get to know a mild-mannered and thoughtful homosexual man. Michael (not his real name) enjoys attending a church that happens to take an unequivocal stance against same-sex unions. By his own account he attends this particular church because, despite members' views on homosexuality, he feels the warmth of believing fellowship and worship there, as well as a strong acknowledgment of Christ's lordship. He is not secretive about his homosexuality to members of the church, or about his active role in an AIDS ministry. Michael grew up in the church, had a strained relationship with his father, who died when Michael was eleven, and is now HIV-positive but asymptomatic. Michael does not appear to be emotionally torn by the conflict between the pronouncements of Scripture and his homosexual behavior. He does think that there is a chance that God will judge him severely for his conduct. It is not altogether clear who is witnessing to whom, but his presence creates an interesting environment in which the church demonstrates kindness without giving up its historic stance against same-sex intercourse.
While the above three cases provide an interesting spectrum, I make no pretense that these three homosexual men constitute a representative sample of all homosexuals. My point in mentioning them is simply to indicate one of the factors that generated my interest in the subject of homosexuality. For me, they put a human face on the debate about homosexuality and serve as a reminder to me both of the intractable character of sexual desire and of the possibility for change.
The objective of this book is to demonstrate two main points. First, there is clear, strong, and credible evidence that the Bible unequivocally defines same-sex intercourse as sin. Second, there exist no valid hermeneutical arguments, derived from either general principles of biblical interpretation or contemporary scientific knowledge and experience, for overriding the Bible's authority on this matter. In sum, the Bible presents the anatomical, sexual, and procreative complementarity of male and female as clear and convincing proof of God's will for sexual unions. Even those who do not accept the revelatory authority of Scripture should be able to perceive the divine will through the visible testimony of the structure of creation. Thus same-sex intercourse constitutes an inexcusable rebellion against the intentional design of the created order. It degrades the participants when they disregard natures obvious clues, and results in destructive consequences for them as well as for society as a whole. These consequences include matters of health (catastrophic rates of disease and shortened life expectancy) and morals (unstable and destabilizing patterns of sexual behavior where short-term and non-monogamous relationships constitute the rule rather than the exception).
The focus of this book on same-sex intercourse or homosexual practice, as opposed to homosexual orientation, is a reflection of the Bibles own relative disinterest toward motives or the origination of same-sex impulses. What matters is not what urges individuals feel but what they do with these urges, both in their fantasy life and in their concrete actions. Even so, it will be argued that scientific research to date does not support the assertion of many proponents of homosexual behavior that homosexual orientation is primarily due to genetic causation. Rather, the most that can be claimed is that homosexuality arises from a complex interplay of genes, intra-uterine and post-uterine biological development, environment, and choice. Genes, if they have any effect at all on a predisposition to homosexuality, are likely to play an indirect and partial role, not a dominant one.
While book-length treatments of homosexuality by biblical scholars or church historians supportive of homosexuality have appeared in a steady stream since 1980 (particularly those by Boswell, Scroggs, Edwards, Countryman, Brooten, and Nissinen), those by biblical scholars who question the legitimacy of homosexual behavior are fewer and more recent. Examples of the latter are books by three New Testament scholars, Ronald Springett (1988), Marion Soards (1995), and Thomas Schmidt (1995); and a book by an Old Testament scholar and pastor, Donald Wold (1998). Mention should also be made of the significant articles or chapters by Richard Hays (on the hermeneutical appropriation of Scripture) and David Wright (especially on the meaning of 1 Cor 6:9), as well as a recent book by theologian and ethicist Stanley Grenz.5 Wold's book focuses on the ancient Near Eastern background and the Old Testament but gives relatively little attention to the New Testament data. The book by Soards provides helpful information and insights, particularly on the relationship of biblical authority to the Reformed tradition. However, the treatment of the biblical texts is deliberately brief and written in a popular style, leaving room for a more rigorous and detailed assessment of the Bible and its hermeneutical relevance. To some extent this need is met in the books by Springett and especially Schmidt. Yet I believe there is still a need for carrying the discussion of biblical texts further, including such areas as the implicit motive clause for the Levitical prohibitions; the meaning of para physin ("beyond or contrary to nature") in early Jewish literature and its relation to Paul's understanding of the phrase; Jesus' position on sexual ethics and compassion; and a more thoroughgoing response to recent criticisms of the Bible's view of homosexuality as misogynistic and outdated. A major aim of this book is to lift up in a more rigorous and scholarly way than has been done till now the argument of the complementarity of male and female in material creation as a key argument in early Judeo-Christian opposition to same-sex intercourse.
The four chapters that follow this introduction examine the biblical witness that speaks directly to the issue of same-sex intercourse. Chapter 1 treats: the ancient Near Eastern background; the creation stories in Genesis 1-3; the story of Ham's sin in Gen 9:20-27; the narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen 19:4-11, and various other ancient interpretations of the sin of Sodom; the narrative of the rape of the Levite's concubine in Judg 19:22-25; the question of homosexual cult prostitution in Israel; various issues relating to the laws in Lev 18:22 and 20:13; and the narrative of the relationship of David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 18-23 and 2 Samuel 1. Chapter 2 focuses on the meaning of the para physin ("contrary to nature") argument in early Judaism, particularly in Philo and Josephus, against its Hellenistic background. Chapter 3 begins the discussion of the early Christian witness against same-sex intercourse, with an exploration of Jesus' stance. Chapter 4 treats extensively the Pauline literature, specifically Rom 1:24-27 (arguably the single most important biblical text) and the vice lists in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10.
In chapter 5, I turn my attention from "what the texts meant" in their original context to "what the texts mean" in a contemporary setting. Having established that the biblical texts that speak directly to the issue of same-sex intercourse express unambiguous opposition to it and do so in large part on the credible grounds of the anatomical, procreative, and interpersonal complementarity of male and female, it becomes crucial to ask whether this opposition should continue to have normative status in communities of faith more than nineteen hundred years later. In this chapter I identify and critique seven main arguments that have been employed to circumvent the enduring validity of the biblical witness.
My hope in writing this book is threefold. First, I hope to contribute to a better understanding of the biblical witness regarding same-sex intercourse. Second, I hope to help remove some "dead ends" in the homosexuality debate. My third hope is of ultimately promoting the greater health of the church and of the homosexuals to whom the church is called to minister. Of course, many readers will remain supportive of homosexual relationships even after reading this book. But it is hoped that there will be fewer attempts to minimize the biblical witness through appeals to such erroneous arguments as the exploitative nature of homosexuality in antiquity; the Bibles alleged concern to preserve male dominance in sexual expression; the absence of any conception of an innate homosexual orientation in antiquity; or the paucity of biblical references that speak directly to the issue. Assessments of the credibility of the Bible's stance should be focused on three points: (1) above all, the revelatory authority of the Bible on an issue of moral practice that the Bible strongly and consistently condemns as grounds for exclusion from the redeemed community of God; (2) the witness of nature (to which the Bible itself points), that is, the complementarity of male and female sex organs as the most unambiguous clue people have of God's intent for gender pairing, apart from the direct revelation of the Bible; and (3) arguments from the realm of experience, reason, and science.
1 The translation "you tolerate" is given by nearly all major English committee translations of this verse. RSV uses the word tolerate only once elsewhere, outside the Apocrypha, in Esth 3:8 (Hainan's slander to the king that the Jews "do not keep the kings laws, so that it is not for the king's profit to tolerate them" [similarly, REB, NAB, NIV; NASB: "to let them remain"], Iêhannîhm, hipcil of nwh = "set down; leave, let, allow, leave alone"); cf. 2 Esd 15:8 ("neither will I tolerate their wicked practices"); 3 Macc 1:22 (bolder Jews would not "tolerate" the king's wicked plans). To these instances NRSV adds: Ps 101:5 ("A haughty look and an arrogant heart I will not tolerate" [most: "endure"], from yakal = "be able; endure"); Mic 6:11 ("Can I tolerate wicked scales . . . ?" [RSV, NIV, NAB: "Shall I acquit"; REB, NJB: "Can I connive at"], from zakâ = "be pure, blameless, justified, regarded as righteous" [qal] or, if vocalized as a piel, "justify [the use of]"); Rev 2:2 ("I know that you cannot tolerate evildoers" [similarly, NAB, NIV; RSV: "bear"; NASB: "endure"; REB: "abide"; NJB: "stand"], bastazb = "bear, endure, carry" [BAGD]; cf. Sus 1:57 ("would not tolerate your wickedness"). In addition to Esth 3:8; Rev 2:2,20, NAB translates "tolerate" in Gen 34:7 (Shechem's rape of Dinah was an act which "could not be tolerated," lit., "should not be done," nipcal of casâ); 2 Tim 4:3 ("For the time will come when people will not tolerate (anexontai) sound doctrine" [RSV, NASB: "endure"; NRSV, NIV: "put up with"; REB: "stand"; NJB: "accept"], anechõ = "endure, bear with, put up with" [BAGD]).
2 Note, though, the concluding statement for the latter, which presupposes an appropriate mode for admonishing others against evil: "First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brothers eye."
3 Unfortunate acts of violence have occurred in conjunction with many otherwise noble movements: the civil rights movement for African Americans; the resistance on American college campuses to the Vietnam War; the struggle against apartheid in South Africa; environmental groups (case in point: the "Unabomber"); and the cause of Palestinians, to name a few. If the logic of gay rights activists were applied to these causes, then all of these movements should have been or should be quashed. Indeed, avid supporters of homosexual practice would have to stifle themselves since some critics of their cause have become the target of death threats, drive-by shooting into their homes, arson, and other forms of harassment.
4 For a helpful, up-to-date discussion of Jesus' interpretation of Lev 19:18 in relation to early Judaism, see Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 381-94.
5 John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), esp. pp. 61-117; Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); George R. Edwards, Gay/Lesbian Liberation: A Biblical Perspective (New York: Pilgrim, 1984); L. William Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) esp. pp. 104-29; Bernadette J. Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996); Martti Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998); Ronald M. Springett, Homosexuality in History and the Scriptures: Some Historical and Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality (Washington, D.: Biblical Research Institute, 1988); and the Church i); Marion L. Soards, Scripture and Homosexuality: Biblical Authority ch Today (Louisville: Westminster, 1995); Thomas E. Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995); Donald J. Wold, Out of Order: Homosexuality in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998); Stanley J. Grenz, Welcoming But Not Affirming: An Evangelical Response to Homosexuality (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998). The articles or chapters by Richard B. Hays are: "Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans 1," JRE 14 (1986) 184-215; "Awaiting the Redemption of Our Bodies: The Witness of Scripture Concerning Homosexuality," Homosexuality in the Church (see below), 3-17; The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (San Francisco: Harper, 1996), ch. 16 (pp. 379-406). The works by David Wright are: "Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of Arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10)," VC 38 (1984): 125-53; "Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible," EvQ 61 (1989): 291-300; "Early Christian Attitudes to Homosexuality," Studia Patristica 18 (1989): 329-34; The Christian Faith and Homosexuality (rev. ed.; Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1994; a twenty-nine-page pamphlet). Significant collections of essays on both sides of the debate include: Jeffrey S. Siker, ed., Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994; contributors are from various theological disciplines); Robert L. Brawley, ed., Biblical Ethics and Ho7nosexuality: Listening to Scripture (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996; contributors are all biblical scholars, mostly Presbyterian seminary professors); Choon-Leong Seow, ed., Homosexuality and Christian Community (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996; a collection of essays by professors at Princeton Theological Seminary); and David L Balch, ed., Homosexuality, Science, and the "Plain Sense" of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000; half of which consists of essays by biblical scholars). In each collection, contributions from scholars opposed to same-sex intercourse are in a distinct minority: four or five out of thirteen in Siker; two out of nine in Brawley; three or four out of thirteen in Seow; and four out of eleven in Balch. The collection edited by Balch became available to me too late to be thoroughly integrated into my book. See my review article, HBT 22 (2000): 174-243.