The Bible and same-sex relationships
When advocates of same-sex relationships seek to build a biblical case for their point of view, what are the main arguments they advance, and how might we respond to these?
1. ‘It’s different when you get to know gay people personally’
Some people change their views about homosexual behaviour when they get to know gay people personally. Now it’s very important to us to get to know fellow-sinners of all stripes. And we are much less likely to demonise people once we find that they too are human beings and not just ‘objects’. However, if this leads one to a change of mind about homosexuality itself, then one’s previous views must have been based on a stereotype of gay people, perhaps even bigoted. They cannot have been theologically and ethically principled. So: good riddance to ignorance and bigotry. But the reality of bigotry does not demonstrate that the Bible doesn’t forbid homosexuality.
2. ‘The Bible doesn’t forbid all same sex relationships, only exploitative ones’
The argument is that Paul and other biblical writers had no concept of a ‘homosexual orientation’, and only knew of exploitative same sex relationships, such as pederasty, prostitution and rape. This argument was first advanced in the 1980s by John Boswell and others. But Bernadette Brooten and William Loader have provided strong evidence that the ancient world did have a concept of homosexual orientation. And mutual, non-exploitative same sex relationships were known in antiquity (and note the implied mutuality in Romans 1:27. where Paul describes men burning with passion ‘for one another’). Although Loader himself does not think there is anything wrong with homosexual relationships, ‘Nothing indicates that Paul is exempting some same-sex intercourse as acceptable.’
3. ‘We should change our attitude towards homosexuality just as we have changed our attitude towards slavery’
The Bible supported some forms of slavery and apartheid (so the argument goes), and yet Christians have come to see that both are wrong. We should be open to changing our minds about homosexuality as history moves on. However, there was never anything like a consensus amongst Christians that race-based chattel slavery and segregation could be justified biblically. The arguments of those who thought it could be thus justified soon dissolved under scrutiny. The biblical data regarding homosexuality are, in contrast, different in number, clarity and strength.
A related suggestion is that the issue of same-sex relationships should be one about which sincere Christians differ, and we should therefore simply ‘agree to disagree’ (just as we do over issues such as divorce, charismatic gifts, participation in war, and marriage and divorce). But, historically, the issue of homosexual relations is a different kind of issue that these others. Until recently, there has been complete unanimity amongst Christians on this particular matter. It is today’s culture – which stresses personal choice and individual identity – which has forced a certain reading of Scripture, and caused them to find teachings which, frankly do not exist there.
4. ‘The Old Testament law forbidding homosexual practices has been superseded’
Proponents of this view may claim to hold a high view of biblical authority. But they are saying that just as the law forbidding the eating of shellfish (Lev 11:9-12) is no longer binding on Christian believers, so also with the law forbidding homosexual relations (Lev 18:22). What this argument fails to do, however, is to distinguish between the moral law and the ceremonial law. The book of Hebrews teaches the latter has been fulfilled in Christ, while affirming (Heb 10:16) the enduring nature of the former. The New Testament explicitly re-states the prohibitions against homosexuality (Romans 1; 1 Cor 6; 1 Tim 1), while Jesus himself (Mk 7) tells us that the ceremonial code is no longer in force.
5. ‘Don’t stand in the way of progress’
The argument here is that the world is becoming more and more secular, and that history is moving in the direction of greater freedom and equality for individuals, and it is futile to attempt deny these to homosexual people. But the world is not, in fact becoming more secular: religions (especially the more conservative ones) are growing fast. And the idea of inevitable historical progress is a modern idea, stemming from Enlightenment thinking, rather than a biblical idea. We are not to blindly follow changes in public opinion: sometimes adherence to biblical truth will require us to resist and oppose them.
6. ‘Male and female are largely interchangeable’
Christian proponents of same-sex marriage would wish to emphasise the importance of mutual loving relationships. But the biblical vision is broader and higher than even that. In Genesis 1 we see ‘different but complementary things made to work together: heaven and earth, sea and land, even God and humanity.’ And the climax of this unity-in-diversity is the creation and uniting of male and female in Gen 2. ‘This means that male and female have unique, non-interchangeable glories…Sex was created by God to be a way to mingle these strengths and glories within a life-long covenant of marriage.’
It is only within this vision that the prohibitions about homosexuality make any sense. ‘Homosexuality does not honour the need for this rich diversity of perspective and gendered humanity in sexual relationships. Same-sex relationships not only cannot provide this for each spouse, they can’t provide children with a deep connection to each half of humanity through a parent of each gender.’
Based on this article by Tim Keller