Gay Pride: An Oxymoron?

Without a doubt, there are those in our community who approach this subject with ambivalence but also with good will. There may be a presumption that a more progressive stance of this congregation has more to do with being "politically correct" than with honest struggle over what has been called the "last acceptable prejudice."

Whereas racism grew out of the historic reality of chattel slavery, homophobia is clearly grounded in the church and an interpretation of her sacred text, the Bible. The cultural struggle over homosexuality, in many ways, is a struggle over the authority of scripture (as the literalists would argue) or over the interpretation of scripture as the liberals would reply).

What is surprising in all this is how silent the Bible is on this issue. There are only a few texts lifted up by conservative Christians to justify a prohibition against gays and lesbians.

The Creation Story.(Genesis 1-2). Evangelicals ware fond of reminding us that God created "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." The argument suggests that since the Creation Story does not mention homosexuality, it is morally wrong. The Creation Story, however, is not written as moral anthropology. It is, rather, a story about the Genesis (beginning of life). It answers the question "Where do we come from?" and the answer is obvious, from man and woman. The argument from silence hardly justifies prohibition. It is interesting to reflect that the Creation Story, read in this way, would invalidate what the church taught as the highest from of human life for its first thousand years: the single state, priestly celibacy and monastic life.

Sodom and Gomorrah. (Genesis 19:1-9). In the context of the story, God is sending two angels to warn Lot of the impending destruction of the cities for their "wickedness." Genesis is silent about what that wickedness is and although there are other places in Scripture that suggest the sins were pride, and neglect of the poor, clearly the destruction was not related to homosexuality.

When the men of Sodom saw the angels, they came to Lot's house to determine what their visit would portend. The leaders of the city wanted "to know' these men. The Hebrew verb "to know" used here is rarely used in a sexual way. The word occurs 943 times in the Hebrew Scripture and only 10 times is it used to connote sexual intercourse and only in Genesis 19 is it interpreted to refer to homosexual sex. Even if we concede that the intended violation of these angels was an act of homosexual rape, that is not what the story is about. Rape, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is morally wrong but cannot be used to invalidate all gay relationships. Jesus himself believed that the sin of these cities was a lack of hospitality and not sexual perversion. (See Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:10-12).

Holiness Code. (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13). The Holiness Codes were written to a people seeking to establish a new nation, a new identity apart from the other peoples (especially the Canaanites whose land they were taking). For a New nation, there are extensive lists of forbidden behaviors (dietary laws, idol worship, cattle inbreeding, sowing fields with two kinds of seeds, wearing garments with two kinds of material, etc., etc.) These prohibitions are meant to strengthen their cultural identity, unity and spiritual purity.

That the Canaanites engaged in male temple prostitution means that homosexuality is an "abomination." The word "abomination" referred to things that were spiritually impure (things the Gentiles do) and not something morally evil.

For Christ, as well as St. Paul, the Holiness Code was irrelevant (witness the conversion of St. Peter over keeping kosher in Acts) and it reveals more about the pre-existing prejudices of Christians who single out this particular prohibition and ignore all the others.

The Gospels. Jesus says nothing whatsoever about this subject, period.

St. Paul's Letters. (Romans 1:26-27 and lists of vices in I Corinthians6:9 and I Timothy 1-10). Paul tells us that due to our pagan idolatry and self-deception, God has given us up to "dishonorable passions" and corrupt behaviors, such as the sexual practices of the pagan world. That is the context of Paul's only discussion of homosexuality in Romans. But we must not read "dishonorable passions" with contemporary images and prejudices. Paul, who believed in a careful ordering of the world, is speaking here of passions out of control, or that became an end in themselves and thus idolatrous. Dishonorable passions refers to the worship of sexual pleasures which needs to be condemned.

Likewise, when Paul speaks about "natural relations exchanged for unnatural" he obviously is speaking not of homosexuals but rather of heterosexuals behaving as homosexuals. In making a distinction between homosexual and heterosexual persons, what is "unnatural" is one behaving as the other.

"Nature," as Paul used it and as was customary in the 1st Century, refers to that which is "customary" or "characteristic," not to that which is inherent or innate (natural law is a "modern" concept). Homosexuality was not customary or characteristic for Jews as it was for pagans in the Greco-Roman world. "Shameless acts" likely refers to the lust and exploitation witnessed in the Roman society and most especially of the exploitation of children.

Thus we see that Paul condemns pederasty and male prostitution and heterosexual persons engaging in homosexual acts. Paul would not understand "homosexual nature" that is innate, given and beyond choice, that is, constitutional sexual orientation that is not characterized by lust, idolatry, exploitation and abuse.

As Peter Gomes writes in The Good Book"All Paul knew of homosexuality was the debauched pagan expression of it. He cannot be condemned for that ignorance, but neither should his ignorance be an excuse for our own." Gomes continues: "The biblical writers never contemplated a form of homosexuality in which loving, monogamous and faithful persons sought to live out the implications of the Gospel with as much fidelity to it as any heterosexual believer. All they know of homosexuality was prostitution, pederasty, lasciviousness and exploitation. These vices, as we know are not unknown among heterosexuals, and to define contemporary homosexuals only in these terms is a cultural slander of the highest order, reflecting not so much prejudice, which it surely does, but what the Roman Catholic Church calls "invincible ignorance," which all of the Christian piety and charity in the world can do little to conceal. The "problem," of course, is not the Bible, it is the Christians who read it."

For us, as people of God who read the Bible with both head and heart, the issue is not one of "tolerance" which implies a willingness to overlook these distinctive things about you that make you you, but which make me uncomfortable in that you are not just like me. The issue is appreciating and celebrating diversity, knowing that we never can hope to understand the God who is the source of our identities unless we understand each other.

We, as a congregation, give thanks to God for our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered members and rejoice together in the mysterious, providential nature of God.

—The Rev. Hartshorn Murphy; Rector of St. Augustine-by-the-Sea, Santa Monica