A Simple Kiss
On Facebook, as with the rest of my life, I am openly gay and I am openly Christian. For example, updates to this blog are published automatically into my Facebook news feed.
For a while now, I’ve been in a relationship with another man, Michael, and on the 6th and 7th May we got married. Lots of friends and family were there, and lots of photographs were taken. On Sunday morning I changed my Facebook profile picture to one of the two of us kissing outside the church – you can see the picture yourself at the top right of this post.
During the day on Sunday, I got the following message from a Facebook friend we will call Q.
I am happy for you if what you have done is what you want. I have nothing against you or any other person, but I do believe the thing you have done to be an abomination in God’s eyes, so feel obliged to remove you from my friends list. I do this with great sadness, but still rejoice in your happiness and pray that God can find the way take you to the kingdom by His love. This may mean that my view is still too narrow, but I see the scriptures on the issue as pretty clear. Your latest profile pic was the last straw I am afraid.
This does not mean I no longer love you and care about you, just that I feel obliged to make a stand against what you did today.
What is the “thing that [I] have done” that Q finds so offensive? What does he have to make a stand against? He clearly has no problem with me being gay and Christian: he was happy to have me as a Facebook friend when I was gay and single, he was happy to have me on his friend list when I was engaged, and he was happy to have me on his friend list when I was publishing blog posts that are supportive of gay Christians.
What is the thing that I have done? What I did was I got married. Q has taken an extremely curious position for a Christian to take. I know there are Christians who object to people being openly gay, and there are Christians who object to gay people calling themselves Christian, and all sorts of variants thereof. These Christians base their objections on their belief that the Bible forbids gay sex.
But if you can tolerate an openly gay Christian man as a Facebook friend, what scriptural reason is there for unfriending him because he has entered into a permanent, faithful, stable lifelong relationship? Where in the Bible does it say that marrying another man is “an abomination in God’s eyes”? Q wasn’t objecting to me being in a sexual relationship with another man, because his message was about a specific event — “the thing [I had] done” — not some (assumed) aspect of my relationship with my husband.
This actually exposes ‘Christian’ opposition to same-sex relationships for what it is: homophobia, thinly veneered with Christianity in an attempt to make it respectable.
Salon.com: “I preached against homosexuality, but I was wrong”
A recent poll shows a huge shift in American attitudes toward gay marriage, from a 32 percent approval in 2004 to 53 percent today.
I am one of those people who changed their minds.
Nature in Romans
Verses 26 and 27 of Romans 1 are often quoted by people who think that the Bible teaches that same-sex relationships are wrong.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (Romans 1:26-27, KJV)
This passage begins “For this cause”: it depends on what went before, so you can’t read it out of context. Even so, some people believe that because this passage uses phrases like “against nature” it means that that same-sex relationships are paticularly bad, perhaps even being a transgression of natural law. But does the New Testament use what is “natural” as moral guidance anywhere else?
Leaving aside Romans for the moment, there are seven verses in the King James translation Bible where something is described as “natural” (φυσικός, phusikos, Strong’s 5446), “naturally” (φυσικῶς, phusikós, Strong’s 5447), or otherwise according to nature (φύσις, phusis, Strong’s 5449).
Just one of those verses – 1 Corinthians 11:14 – uses “nature” as a good thing that we should emulate (and even then that is debatable). Two of them – Galatians 2:15 and Galatians 4:8 – are neutral regarding nature as a moral authority. In three of them, “nature” is actually a bad thing.
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. (Ephesians 2:3, KJV)
But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; (2 Peter 2:12, KJV)
But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. (Jude 10, KJV)
Unlike Romans 1:26-27, the seventh verse, 2 Peter 1:4 is about divine nature, which is obviously a good thing.
As well as the above verses, “nature” is used in the King James Version in eight other places, six of which are translations of different Greek words (1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 15:44, 1 Corinthians 15:46, Philippians 2:20, James 1:23, and James 3:6) and two of which are interpolations by the translators to add clarity (2 Timothy 3:3, and Hebrews 2:16). None of those verses suggest that “natural” behaviour is something that Christians should aim for.
Returning to Romans, in Romans 11:21-24 Paul describes God himself acting in a way that is contrary to nature:
For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? (Romans 11:21-24, KJV)
“Nature” just isn’t used as a moral force in the New Testament. We can’t simply look at something being “natural” and conclude that it is good, and look at something being “against nature” and conclude that it is bad. Yes, in Romans 1, Paul uses negative language about same-sex relationships, but he also uses negative language about opposite-sex relationships. There is simply no justification for the assumption that the negative language used about one is worse than the negative language used about the other.
Develop a Gay Christian iPhone App
Are there any iPhone developers out there who would like to work with me to develop a pro gay Christian iPhone app in response to the Exodus International ex gay one? I could write the content if you could do the software.
Two Men in One Bed?
There was recently a case in the UK when two Christians who owned a hotel wouldn’t allow a gay couple to have a double room. Obviously, as a gay Christian, I disagree with their decision because I don’t think it is wrong for anyone (Christian or not) to be in a same-sex relationship.
But what does the Bible say about two men in one bed? The Bible says it is OK.
I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. (Luke 17:34, KJV)
If it was wrong for the two men to be sharing a bed, then you would expect that either both would be taken or both would be left, but because one was taken and one was left, we can see that two men sharing a bed is not a question that affects their standing before God.
By the way, if you look at a more modern translation it might say something like “two people in one bed”, but by contrasting it with the next verse where there are “two women” in the field, I think it is clear that this verse is about two men.
Forbidding to Marry?
How many Christian churches would allow two men or two women to get married?
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:1-3, NIV, emphasis mine)
Different Translations
There are two passages in the New Testament that are often used to prove that same-sex relationships are wrong. They are 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10. Let’s have a look at 1 Corinthians.
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NIV)
The word translated as male prostitutes is malakoi (singular: malakos), and the word translated as homosexual offenders is arsenokoitai (singular: arsenokoites). There is one, and only one, other place in the New Testament where arsenokoitai is used, and that is in 1 Timothy 1:10.
We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers–and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:10, NIV)
In this passage, it is translated as perverts. That’s a little odd. One word, used in essentially the same way, is translated as two completely different things in two passages in the same translation.
It gets odder when you look at different translations of those two passages. Consider the English Standard Version.
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, ESV)
understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:10, ESV)
The ESV has a footnote next to men who practice homosexuality that says “The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts”. On the one hand, the translators of the ESV say that malakos and arsenokoites together mean men who practice homosexuality, but on the other they say just arsenokoites on its own means that. Once again, the translation of arsenokoites is not consistent between the two passages, but this time we can see that the translators of the ESV disagree with the translators of the NIV about what arsenokoites means. They also disagree about what malakos means. The NIV says it means male prostitutes but the ESV says it refers to one of the partners in consensual homosexual sex.
The third translation I’m going to mention is the New Jerusalem Bible.
Do you not realise that people who do evil will never inherit the Kingdom of God? Make no mistake – the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites, thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NJB)
on the understanding that laws are not framed for people who are upright. On the contrary, they are for criminals and the insubordinate, for the irreligious and the wicked, for the sacrilegious and the godless; they are for people who kill their fathers or mothers and for murderers, for the promiscuous, homosexuals, kidnappers, for liars and for perjurers – and for everything else that is contrary to the sound teaching (1 Timothy 1:10, NJB)
The NJB is at least consistent with its translation of arsenokoites, rendering it as sodomites and homosexuals, but compare its translation of makakos to the others’: it has self-indulgent where the NIV has male prostitutes, and the ESV has the passive partner in homosexual acts. You cannot argue that those are in any way the same thing at all.
The translations of arsenokoites are just as bad. The NIV has homosexual offenders and perverts. The ESV isn’t clear about whether or not arsenokoites needs malakos to mean men who practice homosexuality, but even then the word perverts means something different from the phrase homosexual offenders, which in turn means something different from men who practice homosexuality, which in turn means something different from homosexuals and sodomites, which is what the NJB uses.
The truth of the matter is there is no consensus among Greek scholars about what the word arsenokoites means. If there was then there would be more consistency between translations. It is an obscure word, and nobody is really sure what it means. When someone quotes one of these passages as proof that the Bible says same-sex relationships are wrong, then they are on very shaky ground.
Further Reading
For more about the translation of arsenokoites and malakos, see Arsenokoités and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences by Dale B. Martin.
Johann Hari: Why is it wrong to protect gay children?
In the Independent today Johann Hari has an excellent article on the Melanie Philips issue and the B&B thing.
When people say that a “deeply held religious conviction” should
enable you to break anti-discrimination laws and treat gay people as second class citizens, I reply – what about the Mormons? Until 1975, they believed black people did not have souls. (They only changed their minds when the Supreme Court ruled it illegal, and God conveniently appeared to say they did have souls after all.) Should they have been allowed to run adoption agencies that refused to give babies to black people, because of their “deeply held religious conviction”?
Romans 1 and Sound Bite Theology
Romans chapter 1:26-27 is sometimes taken to be a quick proof that all gay relationships are wrong.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (TNIV)
If you take this New Testament sound bite out of context, it does seem to be pretty comprehensive in its condemnation. However, it isn’t nearly so general when you read it in context. First of all, the passage starts off describing people who abandoned god and became idol worshippers.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal human beings and birds and animals and reptiles. (21-23)
And here these people, the idol worshippers from verses 21 to 23, have started to sin sexually.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. (24-25)
And here, the idol worshippers extend their sexual sin to include same-sex activity.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (26-27, my emphasis)
These verses are not about a contemporary gay Christian couple. How could they be? The initial cause of the behaviour in verses 26 and 27 was idol worship, as mentioned in verses 21 to 23. The behaviour arose “Because of this”. Christians are not idol worshippers, so verses 26 and 27 are not about Christian gay couples.
You could say that the words used in verses 26 and 27 are so negative that you can extend them to cover all same-sex sexual activity: “shameful acts with one another”, and so on. But remember that the homosexual immorality described in these verses follows on from the sexual immorality of verses 24 and 25. That means that the sexual immorality in those verses was heterosexual immorality, and that immorality is described with equally negative words: “sinful desires”, “degrading their bodies”. It is clearly ridiculous to use verses 24 and 25 to condemn all straight relationships, and it is clearly ridiculous to use verses 26 and 27 to condemn all gay relationships. It is far more realistic to realise that verses 24 to 27 aren’t about all sexual relationships, just the immoral ones that arose out of idol worship.
When you read Romans 1:26-27 in context it is clear that it isn’t an anti-gay sound bite.
The Men of Sodom
When you read the any book you have to be careful to read what it says, not what you think it says. This is particularly true when it comes to books that people quote from, like the Bible. Snipping a quote out of context can often lead to a misunderstanding about what the passage actually means.
The story of Sodom is a good example of where misunderstanding can occur if you just look at the wrong verses.
In the story of Sodom, God sends two angels to visit Sodom, and the angels are invited to spend the night in Lot’s house. (Lot was the nephew of Abraham). An angry crowd forms outside Lot’s house. Genesis 19:4-5:
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
This is where the association between Sodom and homosexuality comes from, and many Christians believe that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality. But does the text actually justify this? Now, to the casual reader, that does seem like proof it was an all male crowd, looking to rape two men. But only to the casual reader. Skip back a couple of chapters, to Genesis 17:23:
And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.
“Every male among the men” is a curious phrase. If the word men in the KJV means male adult human, then there is no need to specify “every male” among the men. The word men here is the Hebrew word enowsh (Strong’s Concordance, word 582 in the Hebrew and Chaldee dictionary) which is more of what we would call a gender-neutral word today. It really means something like person. This explains the curious phrase in Genesis 17. Abraham was told to circumcise “every male among his people”, not every “male among his men”. The word male here is zakar (Strong 2145).
So lets look at Genesis 19 again. The word translated as men is enowsh, the word that in Genesis 17 wasn’t specific enough to mean male men. In Genesis 19, it is used without any qualification. Genesis 19 doesn’t say “the males among the men of the city, even the males among the men of Sodom”, it just says “the people of the city, even the people of Sodom”. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the crowd outside Lot’s house was all men. Lot does address them as brethren in Genesis 19:7, but that is a term he could have applied to a mixed-sex crowd as well. (See Leviticus 10:6, for an example of brethren being used to address all Israel, not just the men of Israel.)
The people of Sodom used enowsh to describe the angels. You cannot use Genesis 19 to claim that the people of Sodom thought the angels were male. Even if they did think they were male, they described them as enowsh, showing that the people of Sodom were indifferent to the gender of the individuals they were about to rape.
So, in Genesis 19, rather than a crowd of men who wanted to rape two men, we had a crowd of people who wanted to rape two other people. This was a totally foul and detestable act, but there is no reason to associate it with homosexuality any more than there is to associate it with heterosexuality.
Faith and Pride 