What does this mean in regards to homosexuals?  An heterosexual man may have very many traditionally masculine characteristics, such as competitiveness.  He may have comparatively few feminine characteristics, such as tenderness.  A gay man, on the other hand, tends to have more feminine characteristics than heterosexual men.  Jung makes a few observations about this gender dynamic of gay men:

“If we take the concept of homosexuality out of its narrow psychopathological setting and give it a wider connotation, we can see that it has positive aspects as well. . .This [homosexuality] gives him a great capacity for friendship, which often creates ties of astonishing tenderness between men, and may even rescue friendship between the sexes from its limbo of the impossible.  He may have good taste and an aesthetic sense which are fostered by the presence of a feminine streak.  Then, he may be supremely gifted as a teacher because of his almost feminine insight and tact.  He is likely to have a feeling for history, and to be conservative in the best sense and cherish the values of the past.  Often he is endowed with a wealth of religious feelings, which help him to bring the ecclesia spiritualis into reality, and a spiritual receptivity which makes him responsive to revelation.”

Now to praise a particular gender, gay or straight, is only the brighter side of the coin whose dark side condemns the particular gender.  Every person is an individual created by God and cannot be judged solely by their gender.  That said, many of the gay men I know exhibit some or all of the positive characteristics described by Jung, to the benefit of their communites.

I do not need to add to such a laudatory quote from a respected psychiatrist.  By this and other scientific works, as well as by knowing my gay friends, I have become convinced that individual homosexuals have great potential because of their gender.  They are also constantly under social pressure because of our societal prejudice against them.  Thomas Szasz, in his book The Manufacture of Madness, explains some of this pressure, especially in psychiatry:  “Psychiatry’s  preoccupation with the disease concept of homosexuality conceals the fact that the homosexuals are a group of medically stigmatized and socially persecuted individuals.”  Perhaps the reason that psychologists and scientists meet so many unhealthy homosexuals is not because their gender is inherently destructive, but because society is fundamentally prejudiced against them.

One of the principal issues concerning homosexuals in the church is whether they should serve as clergy.  Traditionally, the church has assumed that homosexuality is sinful, or evidence of sexual perversion, which makes the homosexual unfit for leadership.  However, the American Psychiatric Association has already voted unanimously to remove “homosexuality” from their list of “mental disorders.”  Doubtless there are some who participate in homosexual acts who are perverts (as there are also people who participate in heterosexual acts who are perverts), but that does not make all homosexuals perverts.  In fact, Psychiatrist Wainwright Churchill writes “This author wishes to go on record as one clinician among a multitude of others who has had the opportunity to interview, and, in several cases, to become acquainted with homosexual males who meet with every reasonable standard of mental health in their relationships with themselves and others.”  Thus, while there is debate in science as to the causes of homosexuality, there is general agreement that homosexuality in itself is not destructive to the individual or to his or her community.

But is it sinful?  To answer that, we must turn to the Bible, which I have tried to cover in most of my posts here.  There are a few relevant passages I have yet to write about, but I will write a post about each one.  Until then, I will provide John J. McNeill’s conclusion about homosexuals and Scripture in his book, The Church and the Homosexual: “They [well-adjusted homosexuals] have learned to integrate their sexual powers in a positive way into their personality, with the result that these impulses become no longer a negative, compulsive, and destructive force, but an instrument within their control for the expression of human love.  There does not seem to be a clear condemnation of such a relationship in Scripture; yet under these circumstances a homosexual relationship could possibly be interpreted as fulfilling the positive ideals of Scripture.”

We see in this post that the scientific community is in general agreement that homosexuality is not in itself destructive, any more than heterosexuality; we have seen in other posts here that while Scripture condemns abusive sexuality, it does not condemn loving, stable relationships, and that if homosexual relationships are loving and stable, then there is little in Scripture that can reasonably be used to condemn them.  We have seen that Jung speaks highly of the potential of homosexuals because of their gender dynamic.  If we can lay aside our prejudices and see this evidence clearly, we may find that homosexuals are not detrimental to church leadership.  In fact, they may be gifted servants, worthy to be welcomed.

• Homosexuality is an orientation.  It is identity.  Sexual desire is not the be-all, end-all facet of being a gay man or lesbian any more than it is for heterosexuals.  Since the 19th century, psychologists (including Freud and Jung) have considered homosexuality to be a part of a man or woman’s identity.  This understanding is absent in ancient Judaism.  For the ancient Jews, there were no sexual orientations, gay or straight.  Such a concept was absent in their thinking.
• The Levitical code is one of religious purity.  It existed to keep the Jews holy (i.e., “set apart,” distinct from other cultures).  Other parts of the code deal with ritual sacrifices, dietary guidelines, inheritance procedures, etc.  Christians generally understand the code in its historical context, without feeling that they must sacrifice unblemished rams (Lev. 5:15).  It is frankly odd that Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 are considered to be God’s tenable utterance, while a chapter over, the command “not to round off your hair at the edges nor trim the edges of your beard” (Lev. 19:27) is generally ignored.  The code deals with ritual purity: something may be unclean, but not necessarily sinful or wrong.

Now, let’s have a look at those two verses.  Leviticus 18:22: “You must not lie with a man as with a woman.  This is a hateful thing.”  Leviticus 20:13: “The man who lies with a man in the same way as with a woman: they have done a hateful thing together; they must die, their blood shall be on their own heads.”  These verses seem fairly straightforward, and indeed many people use them to prove a claim that God has declared homosexuality to be a sin.  But is it that simple?  Can we directly transplant purity regulations for a thousands-of-years-old, nomadic desert people to our culture today?

Daniel A. Helminiak makes a good distinction about the Levitical sexual codes in his book, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality: ” . . . The Holiness Code of Leviticus prohibits male same-sex acts for religious reasons, not for sexual reasons .  . . Homogenital sex is forbidden because it is associated with Gentile identity.  It departs from the Jewish understanding of how things should be . . . The argument in Leviticus is religious, not ethical or moral.  That is to say, no thought is given to whether the sex in itself is ight or wrong.  The intent is to keep Jewish identity strong” (pp. 54-55).  Thus, the prohibition of homosexuality is somewhat like Roman Catholics refraining from meat on Fridays: there is nothing wrong with eating meat on a certain day, but it is a religious observance.

But what about that tag on the end of 18:22, “This is a hateful thing,” elsewhere translated as “an abomination?”  Helminiak references Lev. 20:25-26 to put the ancient Hebrew understanding of “abomination” into context: “You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; you shall not bring abomination on yourselves by animal or by bird or by anything with which the ground teems, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean.”  Thus, eating an unclean animal is an equal abomination as “lying with a man as with a woman.”  Do we as Christians apply the same energies against eaters of barbecue and shrimp as we do against homosexuals?  If not, then we are guilty of picking and choosing which Bible verses we want to follow and which not.  To paraphrase Rich Mullins, isn’t it nice that we have highlighters and pens to underline the verses we like and ignore the ones we don’t?

What about the death penalty in Lev. 20:13?  Surely if “lying with a man as with a woman” was punishable by death, it was a dire act against God?  Consider other abominations to which Leviticus applies the death penalty: cursing one’s parents (20:9), adultery (20:10), or seeing one’s brother or sister naked (20:17).  Why might these things be such serious offences?  We must remember that ancient Israel was a patriarchal society: a man (the patriarch) was head of the household, which included extended family, slaves, farmlands and livestock.  To disrupt the system was to put the whole society in jeopardy.  Thus, it was important that every member of the family obeyed the patriarch, that wives bore many sons to continue the family lineage, etc.  In short, there was a specific way of doing things that had to be maintained for Israel’s cultural survival.

Further, it was important that the Jews kept their identity distinct from neighboring cultures.  Many cultures at that time conducted fertility rituals which involved religious sexual acts (including the Canaanites).  The Levitical sexual codes (especially the more bizarre-sounding ones) were in response to these practices of outside cultures.  Although we do not consider sexual acts to be religious, the people of the ancient Middle East did, so that although a certain sexual act may not be wrong in itself, it would be wrong (for a Jew) to perform it in a ritual to Molech, for example.  If the act was done in a ritual to a god other than Yahweh, it was unclean, even if the participants were married.  This religious aspect of sexuality is not readily apparent in Leviticus, but the code cannot be divorced from it.  We must take it into account when reading Leviticus.

In conclusion: the Levitical code existed to safeguard Jewish religious identity against neighboring cultures.  Its rules were ritualistic, not ethical or moral.  Thus, there was nothing wrong with eating shrimp, cutting one’s hair, or even lying with a man as with a woman, in itself, but such things were abstained from in order to preserve Jewish identity.  Today many Christians enjoy shrimp scampi and style their hair however they like, and feel no guilt in these things because they recognize the Levitical code as rules for a previous culture and not necessarily for their own.

But how then are we to think about these ancient codes?  If we aren’t meant to follow them, why are they in Holy Scripture?  Hear these words of Jesus from the gospel of Matthew: “Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to complete them.  I tell you solemnly, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is achieved” (5:17-18).  The Laws, including Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, are fulfilled in Jesus Christ.  His life, lived in perfect obedience to God, gives us the full picture of the Law and Prophets.  And what does Christ, this ultimate expression of the Law, command? “So always treat others as you would like them to treat you; that is the meaning of the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 7:12).  Christ calls us to decency, humanity and love.  Can such a call include the prejudice that the Church has shown against its gay and lesbian brother and sisters?

The story begins when two angels arrive to judge and destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot invites them to stay at his house (vv.1-3).  That evening men from the city come to Lot’s house and demand him to put out the foreigners “so that [they] may abuse them.” (vv.4-5, Jerusalem Bible.)  Lot goes outside to intervene and the mob threatens him with worse treatment than they would give the foreigners.  Lot offers them his daughters to do with as they please, but the mob only wants to abuse the foreigners (vv.6-11).  The angels command Lot to leave with his family and commence destroying the city. (vv.12-26).

The most important distinction to make here is that the mob did not want consensual, mutually faithful homosexual intimacy (as many gay men and lesbians today desire), but outright gang rape.  The men of Sodom wanted to dominate the foreigners by raping them.  There is no sexual attraction here: this is sex as a weapon of subjugation, such as we have seen done in the violence of northern Sudan.  While we can debate whether or not the Bible prohibits homosexual relationships, one thing that it unquestionably prohibits is unequal partnerships, wherein power and dominance rule out all possibility of love.  The mob were not wicked because they wanted to have sex with men, but because they wanted to rape and subjugate.

Yet in the gospels, epistles and elsewhere there are references to the sin of Sodom.  What do they mean?  The prophets shed some light here.  Ezekiel 16:48-50 says this about Sodom:  “As I live–it is the Lord Yahweh who speaks–your sisters Sodom and her daughters have not been as bad and you and your daughters.  The crime of your sister Sodom was pride, gluttony, arrogance, complacency; such were the sins of Sodom and her daughters.  They never helped the poor and needy; they were proud and engaged in filthy practices in front of me; that is why I have swept them away as you have seen.” According to Ezekiel, the sins of Sodom were that they did not help the poor, were gluttons (when was the last time any of us heard a sermon on gluttony?) and arrogant.  The phrase “filthy practices” may include sexual deviancy as the ancient Jews understood it, but does not specify homosexual acts.  Amos also writes about the city:  “Listen to this word, you cows of Bashan / living in the mountains of Samaria, / oppressing the needy, crushing the poor . . . I overthrew you as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, / and you were like a brand snatched from the blaze; / and yet you never came back to me. / It is Yahweh who speaks.” (v.1, 11).  Again, Sodom and Gomorrah are linked with oppression of the helpless, which is certainly a larger theme in scripture than homosexuality.

Despite these passages which list Sodom’s sin as injustice to the poor, the cities of the plain are associated in the Bible and elsewhere with homosexual acts.  There is a reason for such association, which will illuminate the Leviticus and Romans passages I will address in later posts.  We must remember that Israel faced constant threat of ethnic extinction by war, famine, or intermarriage with other tribes.  As such, procreation was so emphasized that any sexual act which did not result in pregnancy (these might include oral or anal sex, sex with a menstruating woman, sex with a barren woman, sex with a woman at a time of the month when she might not conceive, etc.) was despised and considered unclean.  There is a difference between sinful and unclean. Sin was willful turning away from God through idolatry or other means.  Uncleanness included such things as not washing hands before one eats (which Jesus neglects in the gospels), touching a corpse, eating meat more that three days old, eating shrimp, pork, bottomfeeding fish or other unclean animals, touching (or being) a woman during menstruation, etc. Such things made one ritually unclean.  There were rituals to cleanse oneself, and then there were rituals to ask for forgiveness of sin.  Sin and uncleanness were two parallel but separate tracks of ancient Jewish belief.  Thus, when they wanted (as Paul does in Romans 1) to illustrate the worst “end” of the sin spectrum (idolatry), they use as a metaphor the worst end of the uncleanness spectrum (non-procreative sex, especially male-male anal sex).  Uncleanness is not equated with sin; it is a metaphor for sin. (More about this in later posts).

These cleanliness laws were revolutionary for their time.  Basic instructions to wash hands, avoid touching rotting meat, etc., were essential for nomadic cultures to prevent diseases.  God truly blessed Israel with these laws.  But times have changed: freezers can safely store meat much longer than three days, we have hand-sanitizers and soaps galore to prevent the spread of diseases, and sex is much safer and cleaner if proper precautions are taken.  Many Christians enjoy shrimp, porkchops and catfish (myself included).  Technology has made many of the Levitical cleanliness laws obsolete.  Since homosexual acts, prohibited in the Old Testament along with the above things, can now be practiced safely, there is little reason to condemn them on the basis of uncleanness.

As for procreation, many (married) Christians enjoy sex and do not feel restricted to procreative sex.  Unprocreative acts are no longer unclean or wrong.  Thus, homosexual acts can no longer be prohibited on the basis of their inability to produce offspring.

The next post, probably on Leviticus, will revisit these themes and further develop them.

Focus on the Family’s website lays out the basic creation story argument:

“Scripture begins and ends with the picture of marriage as an institution ordained by God – designed for the union of a man and a woman in a life-long, faithful, covenantal relationship. This view is affirmed by Moses, Christ and Paul, and has been upheld through thousands of years of Judeo Christian history and tradition. Pro-gay revisionists usually do not even attempt to address God’s created intent for human sexuality, but instead twist Scripture and argue against those texts which condemn same-sex behavior” (Focus on the Family Issue Analysts, “Talking Points (Pro-Gay Theology)”)

In other words, it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.  Also of note is that Focus on the Family calls arguments against their position “Pro-Gay Revisionist Theology,” which I suppose makes them “Anti-Gay” theologians.

There are two ways that the Church tends to look at the creation story: one way sees it as a wholly factual representation of the creation of the world, and the other as a metaphorical story written to show not the science of creation but the intent.  Regardless of which angle is taken, all readers of Genesis could agree that we as humans can only come from a man and a woman, barring current technology.  Therefore, any creation story about us will probably include a man and a woman who copulate.

Focus on the Family’s argument focuses on Gen 2-3, the Adam and Eve story, or the first “marriage.”  This first “marriage” is indeed the union of one man and one woman, although there is no evidence that it will be a “life-long, faithful, covenantal relationship.”  During the time when Genesis was written, polygamy was accepted by the Jews as a form of marriage and Adam may or may not have taken a second wife had he the opportunity.  The Talmudic story of Lilith suggests that he had another wife before Eve.  Also, there is no ceremony nor agreement between Adam and Eve that they will remain faithful or covenantal to one another.  Gen 2:24 suggests that Eve’s creation via Adam’s rib is the reason that “a man leaves his father and mother and joins himself to his wife, and they become one body” (Jerusalem Bible), and Eve is referred to as “his wife” throughout the passage, but there is no ceremony, nor any spoken committment between the two.  If we accept this story as a model for marriage, as Focus on the Family and other groups do, then why are all those vows so important?  In this case, the argument that Genesis 2-3 outlines a God-willed pattern for marriage is a case of current culture reading its own ideas–marriage in this case–back onto a text which does not include them.

Indeed, marriage was not a sacrament in the Church until the 12th century, and then only with the upper classes.  Before that, it was a matter of casual cohabitation or arrangement.  Nor are all marriages in the Bible pictures of committed bliss:  Abraham married his slave Hagar to bear a child (Gen 16:1-4), Lot and his daughters were married by incest (Gen 19:30), Jacob cheated his way into marriage (Gen 29:18-25), marriage by rape was acceptable (Dt 22:28-29) as was marriage by kidnapping (Judges 21:20-23).  Furthermore, Paul discourages marriage and Jesus Christ did not marry in a culture which expected marriage (unless we believe certain pop novelists). There is more to the “Biblical” idea of marriage than some groups would like to admit.  Marriage changes throughout Scripture and the history of the Church.  To uphold Adam and Eve as God’s plan for marriage is to misread the intention of the story and impose one’s own culture onto the text.

But nonetheless, it was Adam and Eve, not Steve: but does that necessarily imply that relationships other than one man/one woman are prohibited? Neither one of them have friends other than their mate, so are platonic friendships prohibited?  They walk around nude before the fall, so shouldn’t we also emulate that God-willed behavior?

The creation story is not about what kind of relationships should or should not occur.  It is instead an affirmation that we all are made in the image of a loving God, whether we are gay, lesbian or straight.  I have borrowed much from sisterfriends-together.org, a wonderful site for Christian LGBT resources, for this post and I will close with a quote from their blog post on the subject:

“We’ve heard it all before, that “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,” but what Genesis makes abundantly clear is that all creation came forth from God, including Adam and Eve, Sara and Lisa, Frank and Diane, Linda, Bob, Terrance, and all who are God’s children, each and every one.”

For me, at least, it is a matter of conscience and, as I am feeling more and more through prayer and discernment, something God is calling me to do.  It is not simply me wanting to stick it to the man, or argue something for the sake of arguing it: Church teaching prohibits homosexuality, and all too often excludes the homosexual person. Thus, a prayerful excursion into the scripture and traditions which support the arguments against homosexuality is necessary, to see if they hold up under the light of historical, linguistic and scientific scrutiny, and especially to Christ, who loved Samaritans, tax collectors and sinners when his Church (synagogue) advised otherwise.

One of the first resources I turned to is The Unofficial United Methodist Handbook (F. Belton Joyner jr., ed., Abingdon Press), and its section “How to Reform the Church when It Strays From the Gospel” (Because the Gospel does not appear to include exclusion):

1. Know Your Stuff (p. 135):  For the homosexual argument, this includes the two basic components of the debate: scripture and biology.  Homosexual references in scripture only appear in about seven places, known to Christian gays as the “Clobber Passages.”  The stories of Genesis creation and Sodom and Gomorrah are often used to show God’s plan, for the former, and God’s judgment, in the latter.  I will treat these passages in greater detail in later posts, as the minutiae involved in arguing them can be reduced in places to two particular words.  The biological argument hinges on whether homosexuality is an unavoidable biological trait, a byproduct of childhood abuse, or a choice.  Although homosexuality has been understood as an orientation (a nature) since the 19th century, there is still confusion about its causes.  Finally, the gospel of Jesus Christ must be upheld as the example of the Church.  Would Christ accept homosexuals, or is there a theological reason they should not lead congregations and marry?  In ways beyond argument, Christ lives and works within and beyond the printed words of the Bible, and his is the ultimate truth to which both sides of the issue must strive.
2. Trust your conscience, but equip it first with good information (p. 136):  My conscience tells me that exclusion of gays is wrong; I am now in the process of researching these various histories to either confirm or change that claim.  Many people can argue out of fear, or out of a selfish hostility, but I try to approach this issue (God help me) with humility and prayer, open-minded.
3. Double-check and triple-check your motivations.  Are you fighting on behalf of the gospel or for your own personal agenda? (p.136):  Again, I approach this study with much prayer and an open ear to God.  None of that which I argue for will benefit me, other than the Church becoming more open, which could bless everyone.  My agenda is to put light to scripture, tradition, experience and reason until truth is found, whatever truth it is that Christ reveals.
4. Speak out. Act. (p. 136):  This blog is where I will lay out my research, to organize and it so that others can critique it.  I hope eventually to speak to the Church in whatever way I can, fortified, as Luther and Wesley were in their days, with the fruits of debate and study.
5. Prepare to defend yourself, and your message of reform, from attack. (p. 136):  It has been a long time since I took jujitsu…too long!  I know that homosexuality as an issue divides people (some politicians have counted on it doing so) but I hope with mutual respect, Christ-like love and humor, even arguments about it can be made civil.  This is not a battle, it is a search for truth.
6. Keep steady, be patient, and listen to wise counsel. (p. 137):  I need some wise counsel.  Thankfully the pastors at my church are very open to helping students.  I feel confident that God, as God has done in the past, will provide guidance and counsel through others more intelligent and wise than I.

This post is about my process of discernment and trepidation as I begin researching.  Later posts will cover that research.

“Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching . . . We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.” (Paragraph 161. II.G., italics mine.)

Despite its gracious framing of gays as people who, along with all others, need ministry, and for whom the Church will provide ministry, this social principle espouses an old and persistent claim that homosexuality is sexually immoral. This prohibition extends far too often beyond the “practice” and condemns the homosexual, who, although he or she may want and indeed need the ministry of the Church, is not inclined to enter a place of worship in which he or she will be judged.

Scripture seems set against homosexuality, both in the Old Testament’s Levitical code and in the New Testament’s epistles. Church tradition seems (emphasis on seems) to also set itself against it. If these things by which we understand our faith are against it, why does my (and many others’) conscience feel uneasy at the idea of a certain group of people feeling excluded from the Church? Is their exclusion necessary?

Through prayer, research, and discussion I hope that I can answer that question. Indeed, I hope the Church can answer that question for itself.