Dear reader,

This letter about homosexuality is addressed to you. I am not writing these words for a specific friend, family member, or acquaintance but, rather, for anyone who will take the time to listen, to hear my story, to feel my pain, and ponder my perspective. My journey through this subject has not been easy and I sometimes grieve for the progress that still needs to be made. There are times when I feel like a black slave arguing against the white man for my freedom and despair overwhelms me. Yet, I continue the struggle because I know that love wins and my God is with me. That is how I see my life as a gay Christian scholar – I must love my Christian brothers and sisters as I teach them how to better love me. Therefore, my hope is that whether you disagree with me or agree with me, there will be something of value for you within the words that follow. The task of this letter is to argue in favor of extending the sacrament of marriage to include same-sex unions. However, since I ultimately see this argument as a secondary dispute, the first section will argue against the classification of homosexual acts as intrinsically sinful and then follow with an extension of sacramental marriage.

        When arguing against the traditional Christian perspective of homosexuality as sin, the best resources can be found in scripture. The traditional interpretation takes the scriptural references to homosexuality at face value rather than understanding them within their historical and cultural contexts. However, I want to show you that these verses are not as simple as they seem. The first occurrence is the well-known story of Sodom and Gomorah in Genesis 19 where the men in the village want to rape two visiting angels. In my experience, church members will say that the city was destroyed because of its depravity and the passage speaks about the immorality of homosexual acts. Yet, if you turn Ezekiel, you find something quite different. Ezekiel 16:49 reads, “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”^[1] More specifically, the story is not actually commenting on same-sex sexual ethics. The only explicit Old Testament references to homosexual acts come from Leviticus. In chapter 18 the scripture calls male homosexual relations an abomination and in chapter 20 the charge is restated with an added penalty of death.^[2] Since these verses are part of the Levitical codes, they practically hold no argumentative weight in the present day. The rules and regulations of Leviticus were meant for a specific people, in a specific place, during a specific time period. That is why many of the other laws in Leviticus are no longer seen as relevant for today’s congregations. For instance, the laws on circumcision, tattooing one’s body, and many dietary restrictions are no longer followed in Christianity and are not seen as binding. While some of the moral codes in the book are still upheld, they are not still applicable because of their occurrence here, but rather find their ethical implications elsewhere. In the most basic sense, just because something was a moral or purity law for an ancient Jewish society does not mean it also applies to us.

        Moving into the New Testament the problem becomes somewhat more difficult. The only New Testament scripture on homosexuality is a couple of verses from Paul about homosexual acts and the most important statements are made in Romans 1. Here, we can locate Paul’s perspective on the subject and talk about why the modern understanding of homosexuality is not intrinsically sinful. The first order of business is for you to read the text:

“…for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. 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. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done.” Rom 1:21-27^[3]

Most people read this passage and find the answer to all their problems. I mean, as the reader do you also see how obviously anti-homosexual the passage is? Paul seems to almost come right out and say that homosexual acts are a testament to turning from God, they are degrading passions, and they are unnatural. In fact, I would be incorrect to say that Paul does not argue each of these points in this passage. He does. However, does this evaluation apply to our current understanding of homosexuality?

        In order to answer that question I want us to walk through each of the previously listed claims Paul presents in his understanding of homosexuality with the help of religious scholars that write on these verses. First, let us take a look at the purpose of Romans 1 with the help of a prominent religious figure who is actually against homosexual marriage – Richard Hays. Hays rightfully argues that Romans 1 was not written to provide a rule book for sexual ethics.^[4] Instead, Paul is diagnosing the result of life apart from God. Verse 24 says that “God gave [the godless people] up in the lust of their hearts to impurity” because they turned away from him. Even though “what can be known about God [was] plain to them” (v. 19), they served “creature rather than the Creator” (v. 25). They did not honor or give thanks to God (v. 21). They gave glory to “images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles” instead of the immortal Almighty (v. 23). Hays points out that Paul presents homosexuality as the product of spiritual immorality. In the most basic sense, the outward homosexual signs embody a depraved spiritual condition for the people that “exchanged the truth about God for a lie” (v. 25).^[5]

        Hopefully you can see the problem with this understanding of homosexuality. How does this account people like me? I grew up in the church. My parents took me every Sunday and I was highly active in our youth group. I developed a close relationship with God at a young age and still pray daily. I actively strive to show God’s love to all people and worship Him endlessly. Therefore, is my homosexuality the product of Godlessness as Paul would claim? Do I worship false Gods? Do I not honor him or give him thanks? Did I “exchange the truth about God for a lie?” Of course not! In this sense, these verses claim that homosexuality is sinful as one product of turning from God which does not speak to modern homosexuality. I have a homosexual orientation and I still love God.

        This moves us to the second point about degrading passions that deals with sexual orientation and sexuality in general. Paul says that “God gave them up to degrading passions” (v. 26) where they “were consumed with passion for [same sex partners]” (v. 27). The problem here lies in Paul’s first century understanding of sexual passion in contrast to our modern understanding of sexual desires. Dale B. Martin, religious scholar and New Testament professor, agrees with Hays when he says, “neither Paul nor anyone else in antiquity had a concept of ‘sexual orientation.’”^[6] More specifically, you could say they only had a concept of heterosexual orientation or sexual passion in a general sense. People in antiquity regarded all expressions of passion as stemming from a single form of desire. This means that someone could have almost no desire and not seek partnership or have just the right amount of desire and seek heterosexual relations in marriage. In this first century understanding, when one got bored with these expressions of passion or had a greater level of passion they would move on to more extreme and degrading passions. Therefore, a man would go from natural heterosexual relations to homosexual relations or further as in orgies, pedophilia, bestiality, or necrophilia as passion vertically increased. Martin explains this idea of sexual desire using a great analogy with gluttony. Gluttony is a sin because it represents an excess of one’s appropriate intake of food. Paul’s, and antiquity’s, understanding of same-sex sexual activity is much the same. Where gluttony is an excess of eating, homosexuality was seen as an excess of passion and, therefore, degrading.^[7]

        You might notice that this understanding of homosexual desire is ultimately incorrect. People who have same-sex attraction do not desire people of the same-sex as an overflow of heterosexual desire. Rather, same-sex attraction is a form of sexual orientation. Some people have a heterosexual orientation, some have a homosexual orientation, some have an orientation somewhere in between, and others have no sexual desires at all. The best way to orient the differentiation between the two concepts is to see them as a spectrum versus a scale. Paul’s perspective was sexuality on a scale. As the level of desire increases on the scale, abnormal sexual activity takes place with rising passion. We now know that people have an innate sexual orientation that exists on a spectrum. One person could have a sexual orientation directed at the opposite sex where another person on the other end of the spectrum could only be sexually oriented toward the same sex. This means that my homosexuality is not a sinful overflow of a natural level of passion, but that I simply seek partnership of the same-sex with a non-excessive level of desire.

        This brings us to the last point where Paul argues that homosexual acts are intrinsically “unnatural.” Verses 26 and 27 say, “Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, [gave] up natural intercourse with women” in exchange for one another. These statements require an analysis of why heterosexual acts would be deemed “natural” in the first century context. A reading of Martin shows the exceptional level of power dynamics at play within Sex, and other societal areas, during antiquity. In their understanding, it would be unnatural for a male to be penetrated because the man should be in the higher place of power as the penetrator. The penetrator was simply superior to the penetrated. In other words, being penetrated was for women because it was demeaning and hierarchically second. The “natural” order of society was that men were superior and, therefore, sex became “unnatural” when men assumed the lower role that should be for inferior women or women were not being dominated by men. This natural order of society and issue of disruption are present in other areas of Paul’s writing as well. In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul argues that “nature” teaches us about hair length. He says, “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” (v. 14-15) Here, the hierarchal order of society is clearly at play again. If a man wears his hair like a woman he disgraces himself and disrupts the status quo. Likewise, the earlier verses show how women are “naturally” under men so that disgrace is upon any woman if she styles her hair “unnaturally” like a man.

        You cannot overlook this historical context. Paul is arguing that sex is “unnatural” when societal patriarchy is undermined. I suppose there are people of today who still hold that the natural order of society should be the subjugation of women and that natural sex is a reflection of that power dynamic; however, societal progress for human equality and I have to disagree with those people. Today’s world does not view women as “naturally” or intrinsically second class citizens. Men and women are, hopefully, viewed as equals in society. Therefore, Paul’s claim of “unnatural” intercourse holds no weight in the modern world. In other words, Men do not demean themselves by being penetrated because penetration itself is not demeaning. Similarly women do not behave “unnaturally” when they are not dominated in sex because no power dynamics are being disrupted.

We are now back at our question after walking through the three points articulated above. Thus I ask again, do you think Paul’s evaluation of homosexual acts applies to our current understanding of homosexuality? Do you think a homosexual orientation is the result of godlessness or an excess of passion? Do you think a homosexual orientation is sinful because it destabilizes societal misogyny? Looking at the information, I do not think so. This does not mean we should throw out the text. Instead, we should strive to read it in its cultural context for what it really means. However, the inapplicability of this text on this issue does mean that there is no standing explicit argument against homosexuality in Scripture. The Bible does not claim that homosexual acts are intrinsically sinful because of their homosexual nature. While this does not ensure their moral permissibility—for instance there are no verses about human cloning and people debate the Christian morality of that issue—it does move us to a place of moral discussion about same-sex love and marriage.

A great place to start is simply the idea of a loving, committed, and monogamous same-sex relationship. Until recently, within the past hundred years, the possibility of this relationship was not on anyone’s radar. The pervading theory was something similar to Paul’s concepts and people considered all homosexual desires to be entirely lustful. While the information about sexual orientation contradicts this and society is moving away from this intrinsically lustful characterization, my own personal experience still leads me to believe that some heterosexual people still think that all homosexual desires are oriented toward, and find fulfillment in, same-sex penetration. This is completely untrue. Just like a heterosexual relationship, I often only want to hold my partner’s hand, or feel his warm embrace, or stare deeply into his eyes. I want to care for him when he is sick. I want enjoy his company when he is well. I want to eat with him and talk with him about his day. I want to comfort him in his grief and take part in his joy. I want to worship God with him and talk about our faith. All I want is to love him unconditionally. Do you also want all of these things?

The sacrament of marriage would provide the time and space that allows me to love my partner in this way while also reflecting the Trinitarian life and visibly manifesting God’s presence in an ecclesial community. Eugene F. Rogers Jr, author and professor of philosophical theology, talks about marriage in this way.^[8] He rightly says that marriage is a creaturely model of the triune God. The love between two partners is witnessed by the community like the love between the Father and Son is witnessed by the Spirit. Similarly, the otherness and self-giving love of Christ is also made manifest when two people join their lives together in matrimony. Within the sacrament, the time and space God enjoys for his love is created for the creature. It provides the necessary contexts for us to take part in the purest form of human love for one another and allows the community to join us in celebration of this love.

The alternative, the part where you tell me I cannot pursue a godly life with my partner, is utter despair. I do not need to read Wesley Hill’s Washed and Waiting to tell you about the life of a self-denying gay Christian. I have lived it. I have felt the overwhelming shame of “being broken beyond repair.” I have felt the crushing weight of being beyond God’s grace. I have felt the indescribable depression of complete loneliness while fearing that no one will be there to acknowledge my accomplishments, celebrate my birthday, or mourn my death. Before accepting myself and feeling God’s unconditional love, Hill’s tragic testimony was my life.^[9] I hated myself and prayed for God to ‘fix’ me. The problem is, sometimes the things we think were broken, were never really broken in the first place. They were just different.

So reader. Will you strand me in the wilderness of this world and tell me I am not welcome into the body of Christ? Or will you love me as I try to love my partner with all of my being to the best of my ability?

Love wins,

MR