christian views of homosexuality

The question of whether homosexuality is moral or a sin has become a matter of intense theological debate among Christians. Many sects have experienced deep divisions over the topic, most notably the Anglican Communion upon the ordination of V. Gene Robinson as the first openly gay bishop in the world's third largest Christian denomination.

Overview

Many Christian denominations hold that homosexual behavior is and always has been a sin. Most Christians would emphasise that they do not condemn people who experience homosexual temptation, but only for giving into it and indulging in homosexual behavior. Many Christians in North America and Europe dissent from the conservative opprobrium of homosexuality. Among Protestants, the more fundamentalist view is generally strongest in the United States and Africa, while American Catholics are typically more liberal than Catholics elsewhere. Christian theologians who do not believe homosexuality to be a sin argue that the fundamentalists have misinterpreted the pertinent Bible passages or quoted them selectively. For example, they consider the original Hebrew in Leviticus to be ambiguous as to whether "male" means adult man or little boy. They also point out that Leviticus also condemns many other things that modern Christians do, including getting haircuts, eating shellfish, wearing fabrics made from two different fibers (e.g., wool/cotton blends), and planting two crops in a single field. Some apologists make a distinction between "moral" codes and "purity" (or "ritual") codes in Leviticus and say that the purity codes no longer apply but that the moral codes (including the prohibition against homosexuality) remain binding. Jews hold the Bible actually makes no distinction between morality and purity, and that the rules were generated in such a way that following the purity laws would lead to ethical behavior. However, Christians do not believe that the purity code prohibitions apply to them because these codes have been superseded by the sacrifice of Jesus. On the other hand, Christians do believe that the moral codes still apply. Thus much of the debate centers on whether homosexuality falls within the category of a purity code or a moral code. Liberal Christians argue that since the prohibition against homosexuality appears in a list of purity codes, this prohibition is equally irrelevant to Christians. Traditional Christians, on the other hand, consider the Levitical condemnation of homosexuality to remain in force, because they believe it is reinforced elsewhere in the Bible, including the New Testament, as well as in the later revelations to the mystic-saints. Conservative Christians often argue that while the Law of Moses as a whole is not binding today, many of the commands, such as against murder, adultery, theft are also in the Law of Christ, which is binding today,http://www.ariel.org/ff00006f.html as is the command against homosexual behavior.http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2004/0206.asp There is criticism of this stance within the ranks of Christians themselves. These critics point out the case of the Southern Baptist Convention for example, one of the most conservative denominations in the United States. The church came into existence in 1845 and was against abolition of slavery in the 19th century, citing biblical support for slave ownership. The church was against universal suffrage in the 20th century, citing biblical support for male ascendancy over women. In the 21st century, the church stands against gay rights. All of these positions are criticized as being based on a narrow interpretation of the Bible, obeying the letter while going against the spirit of the Christian teachings. However, conservatives argue that the above line of reasoning could be used to dismiss literally every prohibition and commandment found in the Bible, and therefore has no place in the present debate. Conservatives also argue that it's a selective interpretation of history, and point out that one of the strongest proponents of women's suffrage in the USA was the fundamentalist and Democrat William Jennings Bryan, while evangelicals such as William Wilberforce were the leaders of slavery abolition in the UK.

Biblical Passages Referenced in the Debate

(The NRSV translation is used throughout for academic consistency where possible) Each passage is quoted in the form of:

Verse (with link to other Wikipedia sections, where applicable)

Text (if there is no such link)
Argument

Rebuttal to argument

Opposed to homosexual acts

The Story of 'Sodom and Gomorrah'

God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality.

Sodom was condemned for inhospitality, not homosexuality, citing Ezekiel 16:49–50, and Christ's words: "it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement" (Matthew 10:15; Mark 6:11; Luke 10:12)

(Rebuttal) Christ's statement quoted above (i.e., "it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement") does not state that these cities were destroyed for inhospitality — that's an inference based on speculation, and cannot be used to contradict the clear language throughout the revealed body of doctrine which condemns sodomy.
Also, Jude 7 explicitly says, "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion" — nothing about inhospitality and everything about sexual perversion.

The chapter of 'Leviticus 18'

God condemns sexual relations between men.

The literal translation may not be referring to homosexual sex, and even if it is, it appears to be a revoked cleanliness law.

Rebuttal: the passage simply condemns men lying with men, and is based on the Creation ordinance that marriage is one man and one woman (Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, cited by Jesus himself in Matthew 19:3–6 and Mark 10:5–9.

Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
God condemns sexual relations between man

The wording here is the same as Lev 18:22, hence it refers to the same orgiastic practice.

Which is all male-to-male sex.

Matthew 15:19–20

For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.
Sexual relations outside wedlock are condemned — since homosexuals are not married their actions are sinful

If this argument is ever used against same-sex marriage, it becomes a catch-22.

Jesus was a Jew speaking to Jews, so they would all have understood sexual immorality to include homosexual behavior.

Romans 1:26–27

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
Homosexual acts are unnatural, and are degrading passions

As far as we can tell, homosexuality is not governed by choice, hence being natural. Moreover, this passage condemns acting against one's nature. If people are naturally homosexual, then the objection does not apply.

However, this presupposes that Paul even thought in such modern categories. Rather, for him, the natural thing was heterosexual marriage ordained from creation, so all deviations were unnatural.

1 Corinthians 6:9–10

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers — none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
Homosexuals are condemned to Hell

This may be a poor translation. The word translated "male prostitutes" would be literally translated from the Greek as "softies." The word translated as "sodomites" would be literally translated from the Greek as "bedsmen." There is no textual support to say that these two are referring to homosexual activity.

Rebuttal: Paul actually used a most unusual word, αρσενοκοιτης arsenokoitēs, meaning male who has coitus with a male (Greek αρρην/αρσην arrhēn/arsēn = male), rather than the normal terms from the Greek culture. Rather, Paul's source is the Greek (Septuagint) translation of Leviticus 18:22: και μετα αρσενος ου κοιμηθηση κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα γαρ εστιν (kai meta 'arsenos ou koimēthēsē koitēn' gunaikos bdelugma gar estin) = You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Pro-acceptance

Proverbs 19:16–19:

These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren.
Homosexuality is not on this list.

This uses the common semitic X//X+1 figure of speech, so is also not an exhaustive list; Numbers15:32 mentions a man commanded to be executed for breaking Sabbath Law, but the Sabbath is not in that list.

The Story of 'Jonathan and David', from 1 Samuel.

While this love is not necessarily sexual, it does provide an example of love to the extent where souls are "bound." Since this passage does not render it in an ill connotation, modern-day Christians should not condemn it likewise.

As admitted, the love was not necessarily sexual. In fact, there is nothing sexual at all in the passage; rather, it was the way close male friends behaved. To read it as sexual seems a misinterpretation. We know that David had several wives, and given that he was one of the Great Kings, you'd figure it would be more explicit.

The Bible never speaks of sexuality in graphic detail even between people of the opposite gender other than mentioning children and the like.

Matthew 7:1

Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
Self-explanatory.

An argument like this could conceivably invalidate judging murderers and rapists — and gay-bashers!
In fact, in context, the passage forbids only hypocritical judgment; the next verse is "For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you." Jesus actually commanded us to judge: "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment" (John 7:24).

Matthew 8:5–13 — the Story of the Centurion

(This section is lengthy, and will not be quoted in full.)
The term translated from the Greek as servant is Pais. Textural analysis shows that this word was often used to denote a mans gay lover. The text even goes so far as to use the term Slave or Servant (Gr. Doulos) in the same passage making the distinction even more clear. This would have been a perfect time for Christ to condemn homosexuality, but rather he aids the Centurion, allowing him to continue his homosexual relationship.

The homosexuality reference is purely innuendo, and it is quite possible that the servant was not a homosexual love-slave at all; moreover, this is an argument from silence.

1 Peter 4:8

Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
If a modern homosexual relationship actually contains legitimate love, it cannot be condemned.

The Greek word here is not eros, but agape. Agape refers to a nonsexual/brotherly platonic love, not a sexual sort of love. Hence, the passage does not apply to the homosexuality debate.

Matthew 5:21–22

...I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, "Raca", is answerable to the Sanhedrin.
Here Jesus criticizes the usage of the inflammatory term raca, which some authors have interpreted as an insult used to describe effeminate homosexuals, based on an ancient Egyptian papyrus ca. 257 BC which implies that the word was analogous to the Roman word "kinaidos" for "faggot". From this, it has been deduced that Christ was at least arguing for compassion toward those with homosexual tendencies and would therefore have opposed the violence used against such persons. Some authors have argued, furthermore, that Jesus never specifically condemned homosexuality in any of His sermons or speeches.

(Rebuttal) The meaning of the term "raca" is unknown; and while Christ's compassion for all persons is not disputed by any mainstream Christian, it would not logically follow that Christ was defending sodomy here even if "raca" was an insult used for effeminate men - forbidding someone to use an insulting term does not imply endorsement of whatever the term refers to, just as forbidding the use of the vulgar term "whore" would not imply endorsement of prostitution. Concerning Christ's lack of any specific denunciation of sodomy, it was also the case that Christ's recorded sermons never specifically condemned pedophilia, rape, kidnapping, or any number of other sins, but that doesn't mean that Christ approved of these things. Since Jewish society in that era already condemned sodomy and these other sins, there was presumably no need to specifically condemn them all one by one.

Homosexuality and Choice in Christianity

Many Fundamentalists view homosexual behavior as a choice, making a distiction between homosexual behaviour and homosexual orientation. Some believe that homosexual orientation is also either a choice or the result of conditioning or upbringing, and that it is possible and desirable to make a transition to heterosexual orientation. For some fundamentalists this point is crucial to their position, believing that if homosexual orientation is not a choice then it should be accepted according to Galatians 3:28. They argue that this verse refers to attributes that are not freely chosen. This idea has found its expression in the Christian ex-gay movement, which publicizes cases of people who have "walked away from homosexuality". Other Fundamentalists, on the other hand, have revised their view in recognition of the fact that gay teenagers are three times as likely to commit suicide as other teenagers, and that many gay teenagers come from Christian homes (see http://www.teach-ministries.org). Many further recognize that so-called "ex-gay" persons are frequently of bisexual orientation, and that because of their erotic attraction to both genders, they are sometimes able to live in a heterosexual relationship. Some fundamentalists feel it is essential to distinguish between behaviour and orientation. If there is free will, an important idea in Christian Theology, people do have a choice about how they behave, and this is quite different from whether or not people have a choice about their sexual orientation. As for most traditional Christians it is homosexual behaviour rather than orientation that is sinful, the questions that arise about homosexual orientation are separate, and less hotly debated. However, questions of whether homosexual people can change or be "healed" of their homosexuality do arise, and are important. Of course one can argue that if the orientation is not a choice then it is part of God's design for humans and therefore the act of two men or women loving one another must also be part of that plan. It would be highly illogical to imagine God making homosexuals but then forbidding them from acting on their orientation. It would make no more sense for homosexual persons to choose to be heterosexual than it would be for heterosexual persons to choose to be homosexual. Both choices would be against their true nature, whether the orientation is "chosen" or a result of a combination of factors (discussed in more detail below). However in the Christian viewpoint the way people are born is not necessarily a perfect state. People can be born, or grow up with, strong urges to steal or lie compulsively, and these traits are not to be encouraged. The idea of homosexual orientation being a free choice is rejected by most psychologists, as well as most other scientists and most homosexual people. The best evidence suggests that homosexual desires are present in some people in early childhood (see genetics and sexual orientation and causes of sexual orientation). They further argue that to deny people the right to express sexual love with another human being in the manner with which God endowed them is not an act of compassionate love. Many theologically liberal Christians agree and believe that God wishes for each person who has a desire for a consensual romantic and sexual relationship to fulfill it. There are even conservative Christians who have come to a new understanding that homosexual relationships that are loving and empowering are within God's design (http://www.glbtcoach.com/RobertaKreider). Based on Sigmund Freud's work, some notable psychologists, for example Robin Skinner in "Families and How to Survive Them", agree that homosexual desires are present in children, but argue that there is a developmental progression in children from homosexuality to heterosexuality, and that homosexuality in adults can be the result of developmental problems encountered in making this transition in childhood. Freud's "Letter to an American Mother" of 1935 contains this idea - he writes: "Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. " Freud went on to say that in some cases, this might be reversible "By asking me if I can help, you mean, I suppose, if I can abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place. The answer is, in a general way, we cannot promise to achieve it. In a certain number of cases we succeed in developing the blighted germs of heterosexual tendencies which are present in every homosexual, in the majority of cases it is no more possible. It is a question of the quality and the age of the individual. The result of treatment cannot be predicted." Other traditionalists accept that homosexual orientation is not a choice, but argue that acting on that orientation is nevertheless sinful. In these cases, most Christians who condemn homosexual behaviour would not condemn homosexual orientation, but would advocate a life of celibacy for those who have that orientation. An anti-gay counterargument would be to point out that in Matthew 5:28, Jesus condemns not only the act of adultery but also adulterous sexual desire that is not acted upon. By extension, it could be argued that (for example) a man who looks lustfully at another man (i.e. has homosexual orientation) has already committed homosexual behavior in his heart. Although, the same restriction would also apply to a heterosexual man looking at a woman with lust in his heart.

Further Debate

Issues of interpretation

Liberal Christians also argue that Jesus explicitly condemned divorce—equating it with adultery in the Sermon on the Mount—but never explicitly forbade homosexuality; so they call it hypocritical to criticize homosexuality much more vocally than divorce. Also, rather than interpreting the term "adultery" in the Ten Commandments to mean any sex outside of marriage, they interpret it to mean sexual betrayal of a spouse, which would make the prohibition irrelevant to sex between unmarried persons, including unmarried homosexuals. It is worth noting that the Leviticus passages only specifically mention male homosexual behavior. Paul's letter to the Romans is the only place in the Bible where female homosexual behavior is specifically mentioned. It should also be observed that in respect of sexual conduct, Leviticus passages tend to speak euphemistically, rather than offering explicit reference to physical postures and actions. For example, Lev 18:6-17 repeats with each verse the phrase uncover the nakedness of, rather than explain exactly what is meant. Modern readers often understand Leviticus as prohibiting homosexuality as such. But homosexuality, as a 19th-century concept denoting same-sex love, homoerotic feelings and sexual acts at the same time, is not a concern of Leviticus at all. The biblical expression "lie with someone" is a euphemism for the act of penetration. Therefore, non-penetrative sex was never considered to be unlawful by the Jewish law. "The Talmud understands the Torah’s interdiction in Leviticus 18 and 20 to be limited to male/male anal intercourse. Other male/male non-penetrative sexual practices, such as intercrural intercourse, are included in the category of masturbation—a category that is not condemned. To phrase the matter in contemporary language, the issue at stake in Leviticus and its later Talmudic interpretation is proper gender-role differentiation, not orientation or object choice. The text does not address the issue of homosexuality as that issue typically is framed in our conversations today" (Boyarin 337-39).http://www.wartburgseminary.edu/people/gwen/getty3.htm

Patterns of resistance to human rights

Individuals active in the human rights movement point to a pattern of religiously-based (and Biblically rationalized) resistance to expansion of the sphere of human rights. The Unitarian Universalist Rev. Dr. Barry M. Andrews, in a recent essay http://www.uucsr.org/documents-on-hold/bellsareringing.htm supporting gay marriage, compares resistance to it to the resistance to abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, and the end of anti-miscegenation laws. As he says, ... we know that these civil rights were opposed at one time by a majority of Americans, including churches and the government.

Controversy over biblical terminology

The term most often associated with homosexuals in the bible is arsenokoitai (greek: "αρσενοκοίτες" ). There is, however, a fairly strong argument over the ambiguity of its meaning. In textural analysis it is usual to find examples of the word in other extent texts of the same period and to confirm their definition by comparing its usage among such texts. It is possible that the first usage of the word comes from the apocryphal Sibylline Oracles (Oracula Sibyllina - 2 BCE) if, in fact, the text actually predates the letters of St. Paul; otherwise, St. Paul made up the word. The Oracula Sibyllina states that the "arsenokoitai" will come from the north and steal the children. Comparing it with St. Paul it is quite possible that the term was referring to kidnappers or child molesters. Had St. Paul wished to condemn homosexuality in general, it is more likely that he would have used already existing terminology. To imagine that he had no such terminology in his vocabulary is unfounded since Greek literature of the period abounds in homoerotic expressions. However, as mentioned above in the section "Opposed to homosexual acts", conservatives argue that Paul chose this word deliberately as based on the Greek version of the Levitical prohibition of male-to-male sex. St. John Chrysostom, in the 4th century, does tend to use the term arsenokoitai to mean child molester, and St. John the faster, Patriarch of Constantinople (John IV, 582-595) makes the statement: "some men even commit the sin of arsenokoitai with their wives", which adds even more ambiguity to its supposed meaning. The translators of the King James Bible in 1600, had they believed this term to mean homosexual would have been inclined to translate the term as Invert. They chose rather to translate it as abusers of themselves with mankind, a frankly odd expression since mankind refers to women as well as men. All things considered, another possibility is that the term means "Rape". In some cultures, in order to obtain a mate, the man often kidnapped and raped his chosen bride. The elements that are present are both abduction and forced sexual encounter, so it may be rape that is most likely being condemned. Furthermore, the Hebrew passage in Leviticus 18:22 would be literally translated "And with a man you should not lay down bedchambers of a woman; it is an abomination." Some controversy exists over the phrases "lay down" and "bedchambers", which can both be used sexually, but do not necessarily mean sexual things. In particular, the "lay down" terminology used in Leviticus 18:22 is not the same as the surrounding sexual condemnations in Leviticus 18:20 and Leviticus 18:23, leading some to think that "lay down" refers to the generic act of sleep rather than the specific act of sexual intercourse. Also, the term "Abomination" in this case is translated from the hebrew word "Toebeh" which is always used in scripture in context with the worship of pagan gods such as Baal, not to refer to sexual sins. So, it is likely that what is being described in Leviticus is some form of ritualistic sexual encounter that took place in pagan temples (i.e. Orgies).

Positions of specific denominations

(These are covered in-depth at List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality; what follows here summarizes that page)

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is opposed to homosexual practices and relationships.
The Anglican Communion is presently divided. In North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and southern Africa, Anglicans tend to support homosexuality. In the majority of Africa and the West Indies, homosexuality is considered sinful.

(See Anglican views of homosexuality)

The Southern Baptist Convention is opposed to homosexual practices and relationships. They believe homosexuals can choose chastity and recover a heterosexual preference.
The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists accepts homosexuality.
Eastern Orthodox Christianity is opposed to homosexual practices and relationships. Some churches are notably against homosexuality as such (e.g. Christodoulos of Athens and his Church of Greece); others condemn the sin but are more tolerant of individuals with a homosexual orientation (e.g. The Orthodox Church in America).
Jehovah's Witnesses consider homosexual activity to be sinful. Jehovah's Witnesses encourage abstinence from homosexual sex, but also request that homosexuals be respected.
Lutheranism

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is currently evaluating its policy on homosexual ordination. Current policy allows homosexual ordination, but requires sexual abstinence (whether heterosexual or homosexual). GLBT individuals are allowed.
All other Lutheran churches in the United States oppose homosexual ordination and homosexual marriage.

The United Methodist Church is opposed to homosexual practices and relationships. Some local congregations disagree. Politically, the Methodist church has supported civil rights for gays, although it is unclear whether that support extends to same-sex marriage.
The Metropolitan Community Church accepts homosexuality.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("LDS Church"; see also Mormon) is opposed to homosexual practices and relationships. They do not consider homosexual desire inherently sinful without corresponding behavior. Church doctrine requires heterosexual marriage for entry into the most desirable afterlives. There is some controversy over historical positions over the LDS church, covered in depth in their entry on the list of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality.
Presbyterianism

The Presbyterian Church of the USA, the largest U.S. Presbyterian body, is sharply divided over the issue of homosexuality, allowing gay membership but opposing gay service as ministers or on key church boards.
The Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand has debated homosexuality for many years. In 1985 its General Assembly declared "Homosexual acts are sinful." In 2004, they added "this church may not accept ...anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside of faithful marriage between a man and a woman," but added the lemma, "In relation to homosexuality... this ruling shall not prejudice anyone, who as at the date of this meeting, has been accepted for training, licensed ordained of inducted."

The Religious Society of Friends (aka Quakerism) is deeply divided on this issue. The more conservative goups Friends United Meeting and Friends Evangelical Church are opposed to homosexuality. Other Friends, such the Friends General Conference, strongly support equal rights for homosexuals.

(See Quaker views of homosexuality.)

Roman Catholicism is formally opposed to homosexual practices and relationships. However, they do not consider homosexual desire inherently sinful without corresponding behavior. As such, they permit abstinent homosexuals to be ordained as ministers. The Catholic Church requires homosexual abstinence among their congregation, but also requires respect of homosexuals.
The Unification Church opposes homosexual practices and relationships.

(See Unification Church views of sexuality.)

Unitarian Universalism, which is considered Christian by some of its members, accepts homosexuality.
The United Church of Canada accepts homosexuality.
The United Church of Christ's policy differs congregation to congregation. The majority opposes homosexual practices and relationships; a substantial minority supports them.
The Uniting Church in Australia accepts homosexuality.

Bibliography

Bates, Stephen (2004). A Church at War: Anglicans and Homosexuality. I.B. Tauris. ISBN 1850434808.
Boswell, John (1980). Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality: Gay people in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to the fourteenth century. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226067106
Gagnon, Robert A.J. (2002). The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Abingdon Press. ISBN 0687022797
Harvey, John F., O.S.F.S. (1996). The Truth about Homosexuality: The Cry of the Faithful, introduction by Benedict J. Groeschel, C.F.R.. Ignatius Press. ISBN 0898705835.