My Take on "My Take: What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality"

The issue of homosexuality is always controversial. But every once and a while, more fuel is added to the fire (in the form of gasoline, and a lot of it) and folks once again debate the issue with renewed passion. Now that everybody and their mom is on Facebook, Myspace, and/or Twitter, we are exposed that much more to the personal feelings of others - of people we know, and of people we don't know.

When President Obama publically supported same-sex marriage recently, my Facebook feed was replete with comments on the issue. Preacher-friends of mine wrote articles on the issue, and others made simple comments, posed questions for thought, and even expressed outrage that the president of the United States would do such a thing. I made a few comments here and there in response to things that my Facebook friends would say, but for the most part, I stayed out of it. While fellow preachers were writing articles against homosexuality and, I'm sure, preaching lessons on the issue, I did no such thing...not because I'm cowed by controversy, but because (1) everything that needs to be said is being said...over and over and over again, and (2) most of my friends, and certainly those with whom I go to church, agree that homosexuality is sinful.

However, a friend of mine linked an article written by Daniel Helminiak for CNN called "My Take: What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality." In this article, Mr. Helminiak, who is/was (I'm not sure) an ordained priest in Rome, takes the position that homosexuality is not inherently sinful. Of course, there are many who take this position, even religious people, but generally, those who take this position do so while ignoring the scriptures. Mr. Helminiak actually addresses the scriptures. Specifically, he attempts to answer some of the common biblical arguments against homosexuality.

I think that such an article warrants a response. Below, I will quote the CNN article (in red) and then offer a response.

Hard evidence supports this commonsensical expectation. Taken on its own terms, read in the original languages, placed back into its historical context, the Bible is ho-hum on homosexuality, unless – as with heterosexuality – injustice and abuse are involved.

That, in fact, was the case among the Sodomites (Genesis 19), whose experience is frequently cited by modern anti-gay critics. The Sodomites wanted to rape the visitors whom Lot, the one just man in the city, welcomed in hospitality for the night.

The Bible itself is lucid on the sin of Sodom: pride, lack of concern for the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:48-49); hatred of strangers and cruelty to guests (Wisdom 19:13); arrogance (Sirach/Ecclesiaticus 16:8); evildoing, injustice, oppression of the widow and orphan (Isaiah 1:17); adultery (in those days, the use of another man’s property), and lying (Jeremiah 23:12).

But nowhere are same-sex acts named as the sin of Sodom. That intended gang rape only expressed the greater sin, condemned in the Bible from cover to cover: hatred, injustice, cruelty, lack of concern for others. Hence, Jesus says “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19; Mark 12:31); and “By this will they know you are my disciples” (John 13:35).

I agree that the city of Sodom was wicked for many reasons other than homosexuality. I also agree that in Genesis 19, when the men of Sodom beat on Lot's door, that they were not expressing innocent homosexual desires, but were, in fact, seeking to satisfy homosexual passions in a violent manner. Having said that, homosexuality itself was a sin for which the city was destroyed. Not VIOLENT homosexuality, or homosexual RAPE, but homosexuality itself...

"...as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 7)

In the realm of sexual activity, what did the men of Sodom (and Gomorrah) do that would be considered going after "strange flesh." The ESV says "unnatural desire." There is no doubt that Jude is referring to the homosexual passions of the Sodomites, for homosexuality is, very clearly, "unnatural." Notice, please, that Jude doesn't say anything about violence or rape. He addresses homosexuality itself, and by inspiration, calls it immoral. The Sodomites suffered the "vengeance of eternal fire."

Furthermore, there is the sin of "sodomy," so named for the city of Genesis 19. In 1 Timothy 1:10, "sodomites" are listed alongside "fornicators" as engaging in activity that is "contrary to sound doctrine." The word sodomite is from the Greek word arsenokoites and Thayer's defines it as, "one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual." This word is used one other place in the New Testament...

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites...will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

The word for homosexuals is actually the Greek word malakos and is very simply defined as "soft." Interestingly enough, the word is used in reference to "soft clothing" in places like Matthew 11:8. However, in 1 Corinthians 6:9, as Paul lists these sexual sins, the word malakos has in mind something different. Strong's indicates that the word can mean "a catamite...effeminate." A catamite is "a boy kept by a man for sexual intercourse" (Encarta Dictionary definition). Thayer's confirms this definition.

On the other hand, the word sodomites in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is our word arsenokoites again. Some have said that Paul is condemning BOTH roles in the homosexual relationship, the malakos being the more effeminate of the two and the arsenokoites being the more dominant one. It is true that in most homosexual relationships (if not all), there is someone that takes the more feminine role and someone who takes the masculine role. Perhaps this is exactly what Paul has in mind here, but either way, it cannot be denied that homosexual behavior is wrong. Again, Sodom may have sinned in a number of ways, but the city is most known for "sodomy," as seen in Jude 7, 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. Those who practice such behavior "will not inherit the kingdom of God."

It is also interesting to note that some of the Corinthians had formerly been homosexuals, and yet they had changed their behavior and were no longer practicing homosexuality. I don't believe that people are "born gay," but even if someone has homosexual tendencies (we all have our own temptations and struggles), the scriptures very clearly teach that we can choose to not act on those desires.

Let's hear more from Mr. Helminiak...

The longest biblical passage on male-male sex is Romans 1:26-27: "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."

The Greek term para physin has been translated unnatural; it should read atypical or unusual. In the technical sense, yes, the Stoic philosophers did use para physin to mean unnatural, but this term also had a widespread popular meaning. It is this latter meaning that informs Paul's writing. It carries no ethical condemnation.

Compare the passage on male-male sex to Romans 11:24. There, Paul applies the term para physin to God. God grafted the Gentiles into the Jewish people, a wild branch into a cultivated vine. Not your standard practice! An unusual thing to do — atypical, nothing more. The anti-gay "unnatural" hullabaloo rests on a mistranslation.

Besides, Paul used two other words to describe male-male sex: dishonorable (1:24, 26) and unseemly (1:27). But for Paul, neither carried ethical weight. In 2 Corinthians 6:8 and 11:21, Paul says that even he was held in dishonor — for preaching Christ. Clearly, these words merely indicate social disrepute, not truly unethical behavior.

In this passage Paul is referring to the ancient Jewish Law: Leviticus 18:22, the “abomination” of a man’s lying with another man. Paul sees male-male sex as an impurity, a taboo, uncleanness — in other words, “abomination.” Introducing this discussion in 1:24, he says so outright: "God gave them up … to impurity."

But Jesus taught lucidly that Jewish requirements for purity — varied cultural traditions — do not matter before God. What matters is purity of heart.

“It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles,” reads Matthew 15. “What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.”

Or again, Jesus taught, “Everyone who looks at a women with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Jesus rejected the purity requirements of the Jewish Law.

In calling it unclean, Paul was not condemning male-male sex. He had terms to express condemnation. Before and after his section on sex, he used truly condemnatory terms: godless, evil, wicked or unjust, not to be done. But he never used ethical terms around that issue of sex.

Mr. Helminiak's argument here is that Paul is not actually condemning homosexuality, but is merely saying that homosexual behavior is atypical or "unpopular." He goes on to say that even if it's impure, God overlooks impure actions so long as there is "purity of heart." Thus, if the partners in a homosexual relationship have pure hearts, their lifestyle is nothing more than "taboo."

First of all, I agree that something is not wrong simply because it is unnatural. Mr. Helminiak rightly point out that it is unnatural for gentiles to be saved (Rom. 11:24). I would add that it is "unnatural" for mankind to experience Hell, for Hell was prepared, not for man, but for "the devil and his angels" (Mt. 25:41). And yet we know that many humans (the majority of humans, Mt. 7:13-14) will indeed experience a "devil's hell" (Mt. 25:41-46; Rev. 21:8, etc).

But here's the thing: homosexuality is not wrong simply because it's unnatural. Birth control isn't natural. Articial insemination isn't natural. Plastic surgery isn't natural. Make-up isn't natural.

Homosexuality, in Romans 1:26-27, is wrong (sinful) because it consists of "vile passions" (vs. 26), is "shameful" (vs. 27), is "debased" behavior (vs. 28), and will incur "penalty" and "death" from God (vs. 27, 32). Homosexuality is unnatural behavior that is sinful.

Mr. Helminiak very cleverly tries to argue that two of these words, "dishonorable" (vs. 24) and "unseemly" (vs. 27) are indicitive of what he calls "social disrepute" rather than sinful, or "unethical" behavior. After all, even Paul was held in "dishonor" for preaching Christ. He wants us to believe that the term "dishonorable" has the same meaning in Romans 1:24 as "dishonor" does in reference to Paul's ministry in the book of 2 Corinthians. This is not true at all. The difference is this: in Romans 1:24, homosexuality (among the other Gentile sins) is unclean and dishonorable because GOD SAYS SO, while Paul was held in "dishonor," not by God, but by the men who opposed his ministry. Something can be socially unacceptable while still being acceptable to God, and likewise, something can be socially acceptable while still being unacceptable to God. However, if God says that something is dishonorable, unclean and vile (as He does with homosexuality in Romans 1), than it is dishonorable, unclean and vile.

Furthermore, Paul, in Romans 1:20-32 is describing the Gentiles who rejected the knowledge of God and the debased lifestyles that ensued. He lists all of the sins they committed as a result of their rejection of God and says in verse 32 that "knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them." Why on earth would the apostle Paul, in the middle of listing all of their actions that GOD DEEMED SINFUL, mention homosexuality...and argue that, it's not actually sinful before God, but is merely socially taboo behavior? Dear reader, this is an absurd argument that completely ignores the context and smacks of desparation.

Finally, in regards to Mr. Helminiak's explanation of Romans 1:26-27, God does not ignore sinful behavior simply because the one sinning has a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere motives. Indeed, actions can be sinful, and sinful actions will endanger your soul just the same:

"Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like: of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Galatians 5:19-21).

Actually, based on Romans 1:26-27, one cannot engage in homosexual behavior with a pure heart. Homosexual behavior, according to the inspired apostle, is the direct result of a debased mind. You are welcome to disagree with this point based on your own experience and/or observation, but the fact is, our observations can be flawed (and wrong)...whereas God's observations are flawless. In other words, it doesn't matter what you or anyone else says - if God says that homosexual behavior is the result of a debased mind, and if God says that it's sinful, as people of faith, that must be our position, too.

One last quick statement from Mr. Helminiak...

As for marriage, again, the Bible is more liberal than we hear today. The Jewish patriarchs had many wives and concubines. David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, and Daniel and the palace master were probably lovers.

The Bible’s Song of Songs is a paean to romantic love with no mention of children or a married couple. Jesus never mentioned same-sex behaviors, although he did heal the “servant” — pais, a Greek term for male lover — of the Roman Centurion.

Yes, many of the Old Testament saints were polygamists, but as Jesus indicates in Matthew 19, such was never God's original intent. God allowed it in the Old Testament because of their "hardness of heart" (Mt. 19:8), but Jesus has made it clear that today, under His covenant, marriage is between one man and one woman for life (Mt. 19:9).

And to argue that David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, and Daniel and the palace-master were "probably lovers" is absolutely baseless and absurd. That's like saying (as some do) that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers, or that they were even secretly married. Those who know me will tell you that I am a patient person with a gentle spirit, but arguments such as this try my patience. Arguments such as this are made by desperate people who are willing to do whatever it takes to prove a point, including impugning the reputations of godly men and women of the Bible.

Please know that while I speak with confidence and passion, I have nothing but love for homosexuals and for those who are misguided on this issue. Jesus and the apostles likewise used bold language and were straightforward as they publically denounced sin and error, and yet you know as well as I do that our Lord's words, as bold as they may have been, were always motivated by compassion and love.

Mr. Helminiak is wrong on this issue. Homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament. I plead with Mr. Helminiak, with homosexuals...and with all of those who are practicing sin, to repent and embrace the truth of God...for only the truth will set us free.