CHAPTER 8 WHY SHOULD WE WELCOME HOMOSEXUALS INTO THE COMMUNITY OF BELIEVERS?

· · · for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:26 - 29

Homosexuality has been a minor feature of human life since ancient times, although the furor in some parts of current American society testifies to how this trait produces strongly opposing opinions and beliefs, and has become a ‘hot button” or “third rail” political issue. No generally accepted scientific explanation exists that fully accounts for why 5 to 10% of the human population can be classified as homosexual, especially because the trait probably does not convey any evolutionary advantage. Despite some claims for identifying a “homosexual gene,” homosexuality does not appear to be a primary hereditary trait: Heterosexual unions can produce homosexual, or at least homosexually oriented, children; unions between heterosexuals and homosexuals do not always produce homosexual offspring. The best explanation, based upon available data, may rest upon atypically elevated male or female hormones during prenatal development.

Strong evidence does not exist showing that homosexuality arises as a “learned” behavior or that the trait can be “unlearned,” the furor of such claims from many fundamentalist Judeo-Christians notwithstanding. Much of the reasoning against homosexuality as a learned behavior parallels the non-heritable argument: Children raised in a heterosexual environment can be homosexuals; children raised by homosexual parents exhibit no higher frequency of homosexuality than the general population. I am privileged to have several close homosexual friends and highly valued colleagues. All of these individuals, admittedly a small sample of the population, testify that they were homosexually oriented as children and that they did not “learn” to be homosexual.

Most Judeo-Christians believe God ordained and sanctified marriage between two adult heterosexuals, a man and a woman. The Hebrew Scriptures speak of heterosexual marriage exemplifying God’s relationship to the people of Israel. The New Testament likens heterosexual marriage to the union between Christ and the Church he established. Civil and religious laws based upon these beliefs attempt to prohibit homosexuality and often generate extreme social alienation between heterosexuals and homosexuals. At times this alienation produces violence, including murder, chiefly perpetrated by heterosexuals against homosexuals and sometimes against heterosexuals who welcome homosexuals as friends and fellow congregants.

Much of the hostility some heterosexual Judeo-Christians exhibit against homosexuals derives from a mistaken view of Biblical Inerrancy that condemns homosexuality as a sin. Eminent Biblical scholars disagree on this point. A discussion of this scholarly disagreement lies outsides the scope of this chapter. I take a more straightforward approach: The epistles of St. Paul and those attributed to him, especially Hebrews, thoroughly explain that the so-called Biblical Laws (Ten Commandments, Leviticus codes) no longer apply to Judeo-Christians, either as a means to salvation or as directions for behavior. The sacrificial life and death of Jesus Christ and his Resurrection negated these former rules. The so-called Eleventh Commandment specifies our theological obligation to God and our behavior towards our brothers and sisters, including homosexuals: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself. The New Testament meaning of neighbor includes homosexuals, as well as prostitutes, tax collectors, and other sinners.

Many Judeo-Christians attempt to circumvent this imperative by quoting, love the sinner but hate the sin. Consequences contrary to the Gospel message occur when hate of the sin devolves into presumptive Biblically based condemnation of homosexuals erroneously presumed to be sinners solely because of their sexual orientation. This condemnation of homosexuals arises from a shallow approach to Holy Scripture involving selective choice of which parts of Holy Scripture to accept or reject. These “pickers and choosers” face a conundrum in justifying theological and legal opposition to homosexuality while simultaneously ignoring other Biblical mandates concerning behavior and sexual practices.

For instance, the same books of Holy Scripture that condemn homosexuality also contain prohibitions and extreme, even deadly, sanctions against behaviors we now deem acceptable, deserving of only mild punishment, or downright silly: Disobedient children, Sunday work, wives wearing coats made with two different types of threads, farmers planting more than one type of crop in a single field, women attending church services with uncovered heads, women speaking out or taking leadership roles in church, interracial marriage, birth control, discussing or naming a sexual organ, seeing our parents naked, and treatment of women as property. Further, Holy Scripture not only allows but insists upon sexual practices and societal mores outside the perception of normalcy and legality in the Judeo-Christian West: Execution of non-virgin brides, adulterers, and married couples who have sex during the wives’ menstrual periods; a widow of a childless husband must have sequential intercourse with the husband’s brothers until she bears a male child who can inherit the husband’s estate; sex with a prostitute for husbands but not for wives; many concubines for Israelite kings; slavery, as well as sex, with slaves; polygamy for husbands but not wives; marriage of 11 - 13 year old girls; and cutting off the hands of a woman who attempts to aid her husband in a fight by grabbing the opponent’s genitals.

Neither the Hebrew Prophets nor Jesus left any recorded words condemning homosexuality. Some persons might argue that the purported sin of homosexuality for Biblical Israel was so obvious that the condition required no comment. Obviousness did not restrain the Prophets and Jesus from heavily inveighing against other sins, and we are left with an intriguing question: If homosexuality merits the extreme condemnation received today in some circles, why did not the Prophets and Jesus rail against it?

The ancient Hebrew and Greek languages do not contain a word for homosexuality in the present context of that sexual orientation. Homosexuality appeared for the first time in a 1958 translation of an English language version of Holy Scripture. Many persons confuse the sin of Sodom, that is sodomy, with homosexuality. When Hebrew prophets and Jesus spoke about the destruction of Sodom, homosexuality was not part of the discussion. Rather, the prophet Ezekiel best defined the sin of Sodom: This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes. Homosexuality according to our present day notions, therefore, does not appear to be related to the original meaning of the sin in which the Sodomites engaged to their destruction.

Many people might be willing to ignore Hebraic prohibitions against homosexuality while maintaining that St. Paul specifically preached against the condition in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. St. Paul admonished First Century Judeo-Christians to abstain from a list of sins encompassing murder, adultery and fornication, idolatry, lying, cheating, stealing, whoremongering, perjury, drunkenness, revelry, and extortion. St. Paul also listed two other unacceptable behaviors, malokois and arsenokoitai in the original Greek of his writings. These two sins, when taken out of this context, mistakenly stigmatize homosexuality as sinful.

The New Revised Standard Version uses male prostitutes for malaokois, which most likely meant effeminate call boys in First Century Greek. Some scholars suggest Paul likely used arsenokoitai, or dirty old men in our language today, to refer to the customers of malaokois. This dirty old men usage conforms to the prohibitions in Hebrew Scriptures against shrine prostitution in the context of worshiping the fertility goddess Ceres or Cybele. St. Paul, as a highly educated Jew would have been familiar with this usage and reasonably applied arsenokoitai to refer to the widespread shrine prostitution of his time that involved male on male sexual acts. Arsenokoitai also has been translated as sodomites without any explanation of what the term means, although it neither supports the admonition of Ezekiel nor our present day understanding of homosexuality. Accordingly, Paul’s writings do not justify definitive attribution of sinful behavior to homosexuality between willing adult partners, particularly if we consider the totality of his message about Jesus’ inclusive love for all segments of humanity.

Revelation from God to humans through the Holy Spirit did not end with the Book of Revelation. Since completion of this foundational work, the Holy Spirit has taught us that many verses in Holy Scripture no longer represent God’s law for all subsequent centuries. Some verses that include the prohibitions and sanctioned behaviors listed above have no theological relevance beyond the times and cultures for which they were written. For instance, no perceptive Judeo-Christian today can apply Paul’s writing to allow slavery, segregation, or subjugation of women. The selectivity of which portions of Holy Scripture to accept or reject coupled with the failure to recognize that so-called Biblical codes other than the supreme commandment no longer apply to Judeo-Christians propel some segments of the Community of Believers into weird positions that intelligent prayerful examination of Holy Scripture cannot support. Logically, if some Judeo-Christians believe homosexuality constitutes an abomination according their interpretation of Holy Scripture, they must also eschew all the sins and adhere to all the sanctioned behaviors previously listed. St. Paul testifies to this impossibility.

Federal and state Defense of Marriage Acts and Constitutional amendments defining marriage only as a union between a heterosexual male and a heterosexual female derive from well-intentioned desires to preserve the sacrament of marriage and to maintain a so-called traditional understanding of morality in our public lives. The fact remains: Judeo-Christian proponents of these laws want to impose their view of morality through civil legislation. Chapter 3 discusses the counter productivity of such tactics. Examination of the US divorce rate and parental abuse toward children show how heterosexuals themselves have done much to negate the sanctity of marriage. Again, civil laws designed to outlaw homosexual marriage, or even civil unions, will not change morality for persons who do not believe homosexuality itself or homosexual marriage to be sins.

American Judeo-Christians exist in a society and culture governed according to civil laws under the US Constitution and religious laws derived from Holy Scripture. Some well-intentioned Judeo-Christians attempt to modify our civil laws so they are identical with perceived religious laws. This focus comes, in its best form, from a sincere desire for this country to become completely Judeo-Christian. The mission, while laudable, fails to recognize the religious neutrality of the US Constitution and the rights guaranteed to all citizens of this country, regardless of sexual orientation and religious persuasion.

Homosexual citizens of the US should enjoy all Constitutional rights and perform all Constitutionally mandated duties. The Constitution rightfully remains silent on sexual orientation, neither advocating nor promoting homosexuality or heterosexuality among willing adults. Homosexuals pay Federal, state, and local taxes, and therefore should receive the full benefits funded through these revenues. Additionally, civil laws define the legality of marriage in the US. Governmental authorities will not recognize a marriage ceremony performed in a religious setting without the prior issuance of a civil marriage license or a subsequent ceremony before a civil authority.

The Founders designed the US Constitution so that the laws of this democratic republic will reflect majority opinion with one great exception: Preservation of some minority rights so that tyranny of the majority can be prevented. Majority votes cannot deprive minorities of rights enshrined in the Constitution. Homosexuals are a definite minority in our population but they do, as pointed out above, pay taxes. Prohibitions against homosexuality arrive primarily from religious convictions. The Constitution remains neutral on religious convictions other than to preclude state-sanctioned religious institutions. Freedom of Worship under the Constitution means that we can participate in the religious institution of our choice but we cannot be forced to worship. The constitution also has no clauses about the nature of our society other than the idea of a democratic republic. That is, the Constitution has the flexibility to adjust to changes in society while preserving the democratic republic.

At the time I wrote this chapter, US District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California’s Proposition 8 that restricted marriage to one man and one woman. For the sake of argument, let us expect the US Supreme Court to concur with this rule so that homosexual marriage becomes legal in all US territories. What then? My heterosexual brothers and sisters who believe homosexuality is a sin and homosexual marriage abhorrent should keep two important facts in mind: (1) Civil legalization of homosexual marriage under the Constitution will not force heterosexuals into homosexual relationships and (2) The best way to preserve the sanctity of heterosexual marriage requires the partners to live out their faith in witness to their ideas about the Gospel message.

From our beginning, the Community of Believers has welcomed all who profess belief in God as Parent, Son, and Holy Spirit, and who commit to living as best they can according to Christ’s great commandment. All of us have sinned, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike; all are eligible for incorporation into the Community of Believers. No sin justifies exclusion or expulsion from the Community. Homosexuals, therefore, shold be fully welcomed into our churches as our brothers and sisters in good standing in the fellowship and love of Jesus Christ.

I am not so naive to believe that all heterosexual Judeo-Christians will be comfortable with admitting homosexuals into the Community, much less into the ministry and other ecclesiastical positions. Perhaps, the situation will evolve analogously to the civil rights struggle in which some churches, despite their preference for Caucasian congregations, ultimately incorporated our black brothers and sisters into active fellowship. Other churches have remained staunchly racially segregated. Individual Judeo-Christians have the right to choose the church of their choice based upon racial make up and sexual orientation of the congregants, among other factors. While I regret the current fractional nature of the Body of Christ, heterosexuals who object to the presence and ministry of homosexuals within a particular segment of the Community can form their own denominations. The passage of time will reveal which model, inclusion or exclusion, thrives and leads to unification of the faith and the full arrival of the Kingdom of God.