The conversation is still going on. Johnny Laird (who kindly posted a blogpost about my article series on LGBTQ) reminded me of this excellent video segment from Just Salvos featuring an interview with Jay Bakker:

I think the most important part of this video clip is the realigning of the LGBTQ issue from a sin issue to a social justice issue. The Salvation army needs to stand with the oppressed and marginalised and not work against human rights (as has been the case at times in the LGBTQ debate).

Tags: jay bakker | LGBTQ | Salvation Army | salvos | social justice

Sitting here pondering and reflecting on some of the discussions that have come out of LGBT posts here on the blog. The first thing that strikes me is that there are so few persons leaving comments in relation to the high number of visitors.

I think that fear may be a large factor, both for those who disagree (who fear being labeled as bigoted fundamentalists) and those who agree (who are afraid of getting into trouble in their own congregations).

For a Christian, it can be difficult enough to “come out” and be LGBT-affirming. I recall that not so long ago I was with a number of my colleague officers present, seated there and I with a pounding heart and sweaty palms. Filled with anxiety I wondered what would happen when I began sharing with them my views on the LGBT issue. There were several persons present who tried to mediate; “what Patrik really means is that one must love the sinner and hate the sin …” Oh how easy it would be to just remain quiet and slide back down in that abyss, but no, that’s not what I mean.

What also strikes me is that it’s so difficult to have a discussion without getting bogged down in judgmental, polarized arguments. Even if on the positive affirmative side, how does one maintain an open-minded, unbiased posture toward people with pronounced biases.

But I realize once again how important this conversation is and that it is in the public light, “Only in the open, you have an opportunity. Locks you if you suffocate and wither you. In the open air, you should walk with the Lord. My power is made perfect in your weakness then. “

I believe that we must love all people regardless of their actions (whether we categorize the action as a sin or not) and that we must be allowed to affirm, and even rejoice that LGBT persons are in fellowship, and realize that they are God’s gift to us. Some were curious, others stunned, and a few glared judgmentally and commented harshly. I can and I do understand fear. It is not easy to “come out.”

But I realize once again how important this discussion is and that it take place in a public forum:

“In the arena of candidness (in the open) you have opportunity.
Lock yourself away and you will suffocate and wither.
Step out into freedom and walk with the Lord.
(for) My power is made perfect in your weakness.”

If we dare not (or aren’t allowed) to “come out” and discuss these difficult to handle issues in transparency and honesty, how are we ever going to find, understand, (and) love one another! So I continue blogging, Continue asking questions and highlight issues from as many perspectives as possible; maybe it attracts one more out of the closet where we can have the conversation, in the open.

Psalm 90 – Surely in the light

“Surely in the arena of candidness you have opportunity.
Lock yourself away and you will suffocate and wither.
Step out into freedom and walk with the Lord.
(for) My power is made perfect in your weakness.”
Live in a world converted to reality,
Turned toward God’s future, urged onward by His faithfulness.
You’ll never face darkness alone.
Only in the light will your possibilities be kindled.

Text: Britt G Hallqvist 1972 – J Kirkegaard 1971
Music: O Widestrand 1974, 19

Lt. Patrik Olterman
Commanding officer
TSA Malmo, Sweden

TRANSLATION: Dr. Sven Ljungholm

Tags: conversation | LGBTQ

Following many words and much wrestling with the scriptures, doctrines, and my own faith, I have come to find, that no matter how I read the biblical text, I can never escape from my commission to love the Lord with all my soul, with all my heart and with all my strength. And to love my neighbor as myself.  Unless Jesus came into the world to condemn it but rather to save it, then it’s not my role to judge the world, or any other person.

addendums

RFSL—The Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights is a non-profit organization that works with and for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people (LGBT). It is non-partisan and not affiliated with any religious organization. 

RFSL was founded in 1950 and is one of the world’s oldest LGBT organizations. It currently has approximately 4,000 members.)

Tags: conversation | LGBTQ

Recommended reading

Andrew Marin – Love as an Orientation – Elevating the conversation with the gay community. (Paperback – Amazon UK, Kindle International)

Jay Bakker – Fall to grace – A Revolution of God, Self & Society (Hardcover – Amazon UK, Kindle international)

Walter Wink – Homosexuality and Christian Faith: Questions of conscience for the churches  (Paperback – Amzon UK, Kindle International)

Jesper Svartvik – Bibeltolkningens bakgator – Synen på judar, slavar och homosexuella i historia och nutid. Swedish (Adlibris)

Bibliografi

Caputo, John D.
2007 What would Jesus deconstruct – The good news of post-modernism to the church.
Baker Academic: Grand Rapids

Childress, James & Macquarrie, John (Eds.)
1967 A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics.
SCM: London

Manning, Brennan
2008 A Ragamuffin gospel  (Kindle edition)
Multnomah Books: Colorado Springs

Marin, Andrew
2009 Love as an Orientation – Elevating the conversation with the gay community.
IVP:Downers Grove

Svartvik, Jesper
2006 Bibeltolkningens bakgator – Synen på judar, slavar och homosexuella i historia och nutid.
Verbum: Stockholm

Wink, Walter
1999 Homosexuality and Christian Faith: Questions of conscience for the churches  (Kindle Edition) Fortress Press: Mineapolis

Tags: Books | LGBTQ

The problem persists in the Salvation Army, of today. In which way can we include LGBT persons in our fellowship without creating groupings; an A team and a B team? How can the Corps offer (church) membership in the Salvation Army in a positive manner that allows GLBT persons to feel valued, appreciated and loved by both the corps fellowship (soldiers/adherents) and also by the God to Whom the fellowship is showing (leading) the way.

Tags: Christian life | LGBTQ | membership | Salvation Army

There are probably as many ways to approach LGBTQ issues as there are people with opinions. What follows is a summary of the second half of “One family’s story” written by Bishop Paul Wenner Egertson and found in Walter Wink’s book: Homosexuality and the Christian Faith (pages 28-30).

Bishop Paul Wenner Egertson depicts four different approaches to LGBTQ people who may be able to help congregations to find both clarity and perspective, but perhaps also assist it in its own move forward on these issues. It would, of course,  be better to read the article in its entirety in Walter Wink’s book but here is an abbreviated version (a translation to Swedish) and half as a paraphrase interspersed  with the author’s own opinions.

SIN?

The first way one can choose to approach the matter is as a moral problem. One chooses to read a handful of scripture verses with a literal interpretation and conclude that GLBT behavior is a sin, that is, a (conscious) choice to rebel against God and God’s will, like prostitution, promiscuous sex or violent acts.

In this case, the only way to deal with the issue as a breaking (conscious dismissal) of a law, that ought to be corrected (reprimanded) and the response we want to witness is remorse /repentance and a complete change/turnaround. But the question must be posed, is homosexuality a choice to rebel; can it really be likened to ‘prostitution’?

ILLNESS?

A second method is to liken LGBTQ behavior to an illness (or condition) or resulting in certain behaviors that stem from abuse  (from an addiction) that can only be treated with complete abstinence, similar to alcoholism. The disease is treated solely in apart from the external behavior: alcohol consumption. If this is the case, a life of celibacy is the solution to the GLBT issue. But can LGBTQ really be likened to alcoholism?

In both cases above we are forced to solve the problem through abstinence (which often leads to clandestine promiscuity), However, can we force someone or something to act against their nature? And more importantly, can one force someone to live out a Charisma, a spiritual gift?

And as long as we treat homosexuality as something sinful, we force homosexuals in our community to live “outside/beyond” that which we would normally suggest to anyone else. Only if we let go of the stigma, sinfulness, can we bless and encourage, tenderness, fidelity, and long-term commitments.

DISABILITY?

A third option is to liken LGBTQ to a tragedy of nature, where nature has been misconstrued; the effect of the “fall” in the world.  Something not planned by God or a part of God’s plan or will, but something that happens regularly in our world nonetheless. An unfortunate phenomenon that we could hardly call good. However, it is a fact that we do everything we can to help disabled people to a valued and decent life. Should we not then, in such cases make special rules for them so they (too) can live as rewarding a life as possible within the limits of their disability?

When someone’s legs are paralyzed we do not draw the conclusion that God does not want them to walk (be mobile), but we solve the problem with prosthetics or wheelchairs. If a couple cannot have children (conceive) do we not conclude that it is God’s will that they shall be childless, but we assist/arrange an adoption.

Should we not in the same manner arrange a parallel structure providing marriage for gay people; to live out a full life to the best of their ability? But the question remains, can GLBT issues really be compared to a disability?

NATURAL VARIATION?

The last possibility is to see LGBTQ persons as a natural variation in creation, one of the wonderful differences that regularly occur in opposition to the norm. In this case, GLBT can be compared to left-handedness. One must remember that left-handed persons have been persecuted, punished and forced to live against their nature throughout history. Man eventually learned that it turns out to resemble issue of GLBT persons; you cannot make left-handed into right- handed persons, it only creates problems. When society relinquished their views on left-handedness one was free to discover the positive rewards assumed by, for example, the sports’ world. But can LGBTQ be likened to left-handedness?

If it can be, can’t we simply include LGBTQ persons in our congregations with joy, and also celebrate these persons as God’s gift to our churches.

The latter two subversives allows us to include LGBT people in a positive way in our corps (church fellowship) and also provide meaningful information, opportunities, pastoral care and above all, we can encourage a sexual morality which is the same as we teach all the other members of the Corps without distinction. That is, we can encourage abstinence outside of marriage, we can teach gentle, loving and committed relationships. And we can help LGBTQ couples to manage their relationships; build them strong and sustainable in a world where promiscuity is otherwise elevated to a virtue.

Lt. Patrik Olterman

Malmo, Sweden

Translation: Dr. Sven Ljungholm

 

Tags: LGBTQ | worldview

The LGBTQ issue has always created friction between the way we understand and interpret the Bible’s view of holiness and how we as pastors are to preserve order, caring for and counselling LGBTQ people. The greatest dichotomy is perhaps between whether we are called to “liberate” LGBTQ people or to have a conversation with LGBTQ people, where we recognize their reality and grapple with how to understand and apply the Bible’s message in their daily lives and struggles.

Here one must distinguish carefully between those struggling with their sexuality (I don’t know what I am) and those who wrestle with how to deal with their sexuality (I don’t know how to live with whom I am when reality looks like this). With the first group one could present heterosexuality as one of many ways out, or the only way out (depending on what perspective on LGBTQ you have (see next post four different ways of dealing with LGBTQ issue)). The problem with this approach is that we have no sure way to distinguish between these groups, and it can probably be said that almost all of the latter group first belonged to the former group. And even if we were able to distinguish who is actually a gay person who is not with any certainty, we must concede that all approaches to pastoral care become much more complicated if we can not present one sexual ethics across the board. Furthermore, we must also acknowledge and consider the third group of people, those who do not wrestle with their sexuality but are completely comfortable with being GLBTQ people and live a normal life enjoying their sexuality. Do we have no gospel (good news) to them? Did Jesus not bring any good news for them?

What we need is a way to talk about loyalty, love, commitment, affection and sex without having to distinguish between LGBTQ people and heterosexual people.

In the Evangelical churches are currently forcing LGBTQ people to a promiscuous life by stigmatising LGBTQ sexuality, branding it as sinful (Svartvik, 2006:307, Wink et al. 1999: 92). It is quite easy to hide the occasional short relationship in a congregation, however, it is almost impossible to keep a commited, loving relationship secret if one is to be an active member of a congregation (Wink et al. 1999: 92). Therefore, it is from a pastoral perspective better to affirm and support LGBTQ people in their relationships and thus be able to guide these people to faithfulness, love and tenderness, instead of condemning and thereby indirectly force these people to choose between the church community or a loving committed relationship.

If one permits oneself to be persuaded by the scientific studies that are available one must  quickly realise that LGBTQ is nota a lifestyle choice a person makes, to the contrary many LGBTQ people would choose to be Heterosexual if they had the opportunity. Then you also have to realise that it is close to spiritual abuse to force someone to live against their nature. It is physical and spiritual abuse to force a sexual being to a lifetime of celibacy. Not to mention that celibacy is a spiritual gift that no pastor or church community has any right or opportunity to hand out to anyone, only God’s Spirit can hand out gifts of the Spirit (Wink et al. 1999: 86).

If one is to welcome LGBTQ people into the church, there must be a well-developed strategy for how to meet these people’s pastoral needs without abusing them as human beings and sexual creatures.

Tags: Christian life | Councelling | LGBTQ | Pastoral care

The church in general and the SA in particular (at least for the moment) in the aftermath of the Eyewitness News program “Cold Facts” – followed closely in FSAOF blog) is under constant attack from the public where the Church is called to account for the prevailing double standards and selective biblical adherence.

There are several issues where the various Christian communities need to consider why we deny gay people the warm acceptance that we willingly give to other people who violate the expectations of purity in many different ways.

Divorce: One of the clearest examples of selective biblical faith must surely be divorce. Moses’ laws accepts divorce in certain cases (Mark 10.2-12), but in the same text Jesus raises the bar and condemned divorce and remarriage declaring its unfaithfulness. Here is a clear case of a chosen lifestyle that goes against the Bible’s word (instructions). Despite this, the Church has long blessed serial-monogamy (multi-marriages), and both welcomed and ordained people who clearly live outside what the Bible prescribes.

Female priests: When Paul writes that the woman should be silent in church (1 Cor 14:34) and that women are not allowed to teach men (1 Tim 2:12) he provides an exegetical interpretation where one willingly accepts the weight provided by the historical perspective and with pleasure adds the weight of Jesus’ positive attitude toward women (especially as he is portrayed in Luke). This, in spite of the Bible’s clear words and the Church’s historic attitude toward women. The modern church says that the original human dignity, human beings created in God’s image, outweighs Paul’s admonition to the women of Corinth. I believe it is important to understand that from a historical perspective, it is just as unthinkable to have a female priest as a gay priest.

Extramarital sex, remarriage and cohabitation: On these issues the church stands on rather a weak biblical foundation. It is clear that Paul takes a strong stand against promiscuity. From a biblical perspective sex (sexually activity) at home within marriage has no place, rather it is sex that confirms and shapes/forms marriage. Promiscuity must therefore be equated with ‘multi-marriage’ and cohabitation must be likened to marriage from a biblical perspective, which also means that to end and move away from each other must be equated with divorce. Only if we see the world from an informed perspective based in the Word, can we act correctly in pastoral roles. In other words, if cohabitation (a sexually active relationship) can be considered marriage as the ‘fellowship’ may encourage fidelity and eventually formalize a regulation defining the relationship. (marriage). On the issue of promiscuity one can then, also on Biblical grounds, argue that Paul advises against such a lifestyle (be it homosexual or heterosexual) although the Bible on the whole does not actually condemn polygamy.

Sex during menstruation: I do not know of a single church where this is spoken about, thought it is part of the same Moses’ law that ‘reliably’ dictated existing same-sex relationships. The usual rationalization is that one does not meddle in ‘what happens in the privacy of the bedroom of married couples’; perhaps this attitude should also include LGBT persons.

Pork: the list of Old Testament legislation that Christians generally ignore is long but significantly it may well be that just the (traditional Swedish) Christmas baked ham and hot dogs fall on the list of things which the Lord declares detestable the (tuevah) of Moses. Paul explains clearly in Galatians and insists that compliance with a small portion of the demands complying with the law in its entirety.

Perhaps it is true that if the church continued to say that it is inappropriate for a LGBTQ person to become a member (or leader, or as in the case of the Salvation Army, a soldier), we have to revisit some of these issues. Because there is a host of other offenses that our congregations clearly approve of, by not distancing itself from it and sometimes even encourages (‘chances’ and lottery in the church, overweight/obesity, judgmental of other people, etc.). I still wonder when the last person was denied leadership or membership based on their greed, inhospitality, divorce / remarriage, or because they eat too many biscuits with their coffee (gluttony)?

If the Salvation Army (to direct the spotlight on the faith community I am a member of) continued to announce that the great soldier’s landscape is a lifestyle choice that aims at sanctification, and if you mean by sanctification following a regulations of conduct, should corps not treat all violations against these regulations in the same fashion?

If we choose to discriminate against certain behaviors and rule violations, but look the other way with respect to other behaviors and rule violations, we as a faith community make ourselves guilty of a double standard, that which “Eyewitness News” and part of the public have accused us of.

Though it is clear, the path through the catalog of sins is a path which the Church has tried before with mixed success. Maybe it’s time to consider the way of grace. Where we, together with Paul brings to us the freedom message that Jesus preached. Where we recognize that the church is not a club for saints but a healing place for sinners, and when I say sinners, I mean all people. Is it not so that we all miss the target, not only sexually but also outside the bed room. Let us stop being hypocritical and admit that we have not figured this out trying to live a life of holiness, that it is not only about to denying oneself certain behaviors, but instead it is about how we love God and how we love our neighbor. Therefore, we are a church fellowship, seeking to learn how we (one) live a life (enfolded) in love.

I believe that from a secular perspective, a church with that attitude is not only accepted but will be invited to actively participate in the public debate.

Lt. Patrik Olterman

Malmo, Sweden

Translation: Dr. Sven Ljungholm

Tags: church | LGBTQ | sal | Salvation Army

After a review of the scriptures that have traditionally been used to describe and condemn homosexual acts, it’s deemed important to consider Jesus’ awkward silence on the issue. It is not unimportant to note that Jesus did not speak out on this issue. Jesus is the head of the Church and the individual disciples’ headmaster. (Lead teacher) Therefore, a credible perspective of Jesus must put forward before we can take a position on any issue from the church’s side.

There are many who interpret Jesus’ silence on this issue as acceptance and even a blessing of LGBTQ people. There is a mistaken exegesis of the biblical texts, to argue that silence on an issue is equal to a positive attitude towards the (same) issue. In the same way as it is faulty exegesis to argue from the opposite position.

John D. Caputo* argues that, if Jesus’ view was separated from the prevailing Jewish attitude on the issue, it would have stood with the Gospel and believes in the same breath that, Jesus’ views were in line with Moses’ and the view later expressed by Paul and other New Testament Bible writers.

Further, John D. Caputo argues that, if Jesus knew what we know today, if Jesus were able to participate in our contemporary debate on this issue, were divided by the prevailing Jewish attitude on the issue, it would have stood with the Gospel and believed in the same breath that Jesus’ views were in line with Moses and the view later expressed by Paul and other New Testament Bible writers.

However, Caputo’s argument that, if Jesus knew what we know today, if Jesus was able to take part in today’s debate on this issue Jesus would probably been on the side of the outcast and marginalized. (Caputo, 2007:108 f). Because, even if Jesus did not voice an opinion on the issue of men who have sex with men, Jesus’ commitment to the weak and the outcast is clear. Again and again Jesus sides with those who are not allowed to participate in and who are excluded from the religious community.

Even in our Swedish, tolerant society LGBTQ people are still ‘outcasts’. In spite of the media’s onslaught, and the mindset that it’s PC (politically correct) to be pro GLBT, Sweden still remains a hetero normal society. Moreover, one can argue that tolerance, even if it is a step in the right direction, is not equality or particularly loving.

Consider the following statement:

“It’s fine with me that you are gay, I’ve actually got several friends who are gay, and I think it is ok. Although I would never dream of being one myself, but I have no problem with you being gay “

This is the language of tolerance (ed. Not acceptance or inclusivity). It is clear that those who tolerate consider themselves to be better or at least more correct (righteous) than the one that is tolerated or who tolerates sufferance conditions. The person who tolerates seems to have adopted the idea that he or she has the right to decide what is ok or not. If we seek to be more like Jesus, we must be more than tolerant: we must be inclusive and loving.

It is likely that the man who commanded the disciples to love one another (John 15:17) would question the contemporary church for its exclusivity and demeaning attitude towards LGBTQ people, at the same time as the church willingly fails to pay attention to obvious and frequent sins such as greed, lust, pettiness, gluttony, idolatry, envy, slander, pride, etc.

Perhaps it is precisely here that one must take into account some well-known interpretation of biblical principles. With only a half dozen verses that even refer to the key issue, and with only a few of them, on closer examination, can be said to relate to same sex sexuality, and with none of the verses speaking of committed loving relationships. This is set against the hundreds of verses that tell us not to hate, not to condemn and not to oppress.

Perhaps it is here we must let the central scriptures explain peripheral or difficult to interpret scripture. Perhaps, Jesus words “love one another), or Paul’s words,” because there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female “be allowed to control the debate, perhaps we need to let the virtue theory (Childress et al. 1967: 648) to control (dictate) in this matter and therefore consider if love is indeed not the greatest virtue, and therefore consider whether the commandment of love outweighs the handful of verses that we normally refer to in conjunction with this issue.

* John D. Caputo is the Thomas J. Watson Professor of Religion Emeritus at Syracuse University and the David R. Cook Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Villanova University and the founder of weak theology

Lt. Patrik Olterman

Malmo, Sweden

Translation: Dr. Sven Ljungholm

Tags: Bible | Christian life | jesus | LGBTQ

Of course, one must carefully consider the scripture portions that deal with homosexuality. It may be interesting to take into account the fact that there are six Bible verses (three OT and three NT) and two Old Testament stories traditionally associated with homosexuality.

Set this against the more than 600 Bible verses that talk about greed, one can imagine that the number of words / hours spent on these issues are largely disproportionate to how much weight the biblical witnesses (authors) have given to this particular question. In English we call these Bible verses “the clobber verses”, because it is these scripture verses that are often used to silence, or in retorting people with a LGBTQ orientation. However, upon closer examination one can rightly question whether these verses really deal with homosexuality in the same way that we view (perceive) homosexuality today.

It may be helpful to pose the question before one turns to the Bible. Can the text of the Bible speak of a reality that must have been alien to the contemporary culture at the time of writing and ultimately foreign to the biblical authors themselves? Historically, there appears to be no evidence that they had any knowledge of sexual orientation as a congenital condition or that they had knowledge of giving over to intimate loving homosexual relationships.

In the Old Testament we find a few stories that have traditionally been cited in the gay debate. The most famous of these stories is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah:

“Genesis 19:4-9 (NIV) 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” 6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.” 9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.”

They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. What should be obvious after only a superficial reading of this text is that it is not about gay men, but rather, all of the city’s men who gather outside Lot’s door (it seems unlikely that all the inhabitants of Sodom, both young and old would be gay). It is also clear that this is not a comment on giving themselves over to loving relationships, but rather, it speaks of sexual abuse; rape and assault. What is even more interesting is that if we search through the rest of the Bible, if the text referenced homosexuality, we’d find more references to Sodom’s sin defined as homosexuality or sexual sins. Instead, one finds that most biblical texts that refer to Sodom and Gomorrah, list the city’s sin as xenophobia, inhospitality, idolatry, greed and oppression of the poor. (eg, Jeremiah 23:14, Luke 10:12).

Svartvik believes that the story of Sodom is a story that encourages hospitality rather than one that warns of the dangers of homosexuality. (Svartvik 2006). (Prof. Jesper Svartvik is Krister Stendahl Professor of Theology of Religions at Lund University and at the Swedish Theological Institute in Jerusalem. He is also a member of the Peer Review Board of Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations)

Further, Svartvik believes that the story has parallels with the legend of Procrustes (Προκρούστης or “the stretcher who hammers out the metal”) which is about a man who changed his house guests’ height in order that they fit the beds in their guest rooms. A ‘come as you are and become like us’ philosophy. Perhaps it is the churches who have committed sodomy more so than LGBTQ persons. Nonetheless, it is the city of Sodom’s name that has become synonymous with homosexuality. In Judges (chapters 19-22), we find one of the Old Testament’s most macabre tales, but again, even here we cannot conclude that this is about a deep, and heartfelt homosexual relationships, but once again, rape and assault.

Judges 19:22-26 (NIV) 22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.” 23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.” 25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

The next stop is Deuteronomy in which the following verse was presented as a text that condemns homosexual behavior, however, the translation of the Bible in 2000 states that this is all about male and female temple prostitution. Deuteronomy 23:17-18 (NIV) 17 No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute. 18 You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute[a] into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both.

The reason that this text is used is that the word sodomite is used in the text. (The double reference to male and female shrine prostitutes (Deut. 23:17-18) tends to reinforce a reference to sodomy) There are two important observations to make here: first of all, one could read this to mean that the law of Moses and Paul speak of heterosexual men and women engaged in homosexual acts and from this perspective recognize this as disgusting and unnatural.

In the text from Romans one can choose to read it as: Heterosexual men abandoned their natural intercourse with women, and began unnatural homosexual relationships with other men. One can of course also read this text as Paul saying that homosexuality is unnatural, but then we assume that Paul had knowledge (awareness) of something that was not documented until 1896 in the Journal of the History of Ideas.

On the other hand, one could draw the conclusion that there is a deeper perspective, based on contemporary gender perspective. Svartvik believes that at the time these texts were written, there was only one (recognized) sex: the male. One was either a man or a partial one (woman). Sexual acts defined in this way who was the man. Anyone who penetrates the male and the person being penetrated is female or a type subordinate. Thus, it is unnatural for a man to submit to another man sexually (Svartvik, 2006: 293f) This means that it is not the sex act that is unnatural, but rather that a man submits to another man (as a woman in accordance with prevailing social structure should be doing). If one chooses to read from this perspective, then one must consider all the arguments used in the debate relative to women’s rights.

The second observation is that Moses terms just this an abominable sin (the Hebrew word is tuevah mainly connected with impurity and idolatry). Furthermore, one finds the following two verses in the New Testament where the Greek word used is arsenokoites which literally means men who have sex. It is not entirely clear (as is the case with all the compound words) that it means men who sleep with men, but assume that this is so because it seems to be an allusion to the text in Leviticus that appears to be the same in the Greek Septuagint: 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV) Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 1 Timothy 1:10(NIV)…for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality [arsenokoites], for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

Whatever the words’ historic importance (to keep the text short, the problem of compound words are omitted) the text is clear enough for us to understand that what is described here is not an intimate, loving, and committed relationship between two people of the same the sex.

Furthermore, we have the three Bible verses that obviously refer to homosexuality; two from Moses, and one from Paul’s letter to the Romans.

“Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” (Lev 18:22)

“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”(Lev 20:13)

“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.‘” (Rom 1:26–27)

There are two important observations to make here: first, one could read this to mean that Moses and Paul speak of heterosexual men and women engaged in homosexual acts and from this perspective maintain that this is disgusting and unnatural. In the text from Romans one can choose to read (just) that: Heterosexual men abandoned their natural intercourse with women, and started unnatural homosexual relationships with other men. Of course one can also read this text as Paul saying that homosexuality is unnatural, but then we must incorrectly assume that Paul was aware of something that is was not documented until the 1896 History of Ideas.

On the other hand, one could conclude that there is a deeper perspective, based on contemporary gender perspective. Svartvik believe that at the time these texts were written, there was only one sex: the male. One was either a man or a partial man (woman). The sexual act defined who was the man. Anyone who penetrates is a male and the person being penetrated is a subordinate. Thus, it is unnatural for a man to submit to another man sexually (Svartvik, 2006: 293f)

This means that it is not the sex act that is unnatural, but rather, if a man submits to another man (as a woman in the prevailing social structure should be doing). If you choose to read from this perspective, one must consider all the arguments used in the debate on women’s rights.

The second observation is that the laws of Moses terms just this sin as abominable (the Hebrew word is tuevah mainly in linked with impurity and idolatry). In our contemporary church this is often taught as a declaration that homosexuality is a especially reprehensible sin. It may be worthwhile then to add the example; A woman who wears trousers (5 Ex. 22.5) or a man who eats pork (Isaiah 66.7) is also disgusting (tuevah) before the Lord.

According to theologian Jesper Svartvik  ”the act described in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 an ‘abomination’, in the same way as any celebration serving crayfish and or an eel feast. (Svartvik, 2006:298)

There is, of course, much more to say on the subject of a biblical view of homosexuality, it is however, clear from a biblical perspective that:

1. It is a not an equally important issue compared to oppression, greed and idolatry.

2. The most often referenced in the text of the Bible is violent behavior, promiscuous behavior, or pederasty (Older men who exploit young boys), with which the Bible distances itself.

3. The prevailing sexual views was not about biology, but gender (Svartvik 2006:294) and was meant to support the social structure.

4. There is no historical or biblical evidence that the Bible’s authors had an concept that there were people with different innate sexual orientation (although theologian NT Wright argues for such a knowledge-based references to Homer, there are also those who believe that people born gay were classified as eunucks), but without a condemning with one voice they acting against their sexual nature. Therefore it seems important to agree with KG Hammar, who writes:

 The Bible condemns the promiscuous homosexual relationships the same way that the Bible condemns the promiscuous heterosexual relationships. The Bible also condemns in all situations, sexual violence, oppression and acts motivated by hate, anger and fear.

This is by no means convincing evidence in order to abandon his conviction that the Bible condemns homosexuality. However, it should provide enough information for the believing/acknowledged Christian to take the issue seriously and seek God’s guidance on how one should or should not behave towards LGBTQ people and that the attitude of the church should be in question.

Lt. Patrik Olterman

Malmo, Sweden

Translation: Dr. Sven Ljungholm

Tags: Bible | LGBTQ