First Parish Sermon

Presented April 25, 1999
Rev. Kimberly Wood
Copyright (c) 1999 Rev. Kimberly Wood

Reflection

When my step-sister and I were in the third grade we figured out that our uncle and his roommate were gay. We asked our mother and she said yes they were. There was not much discussion about the whole topic. I grew up, seeing my two uncles together, as a couple; they are still together today.

It is difficult for me to understand why society in general does not validate their relationship Why they cannot be married legally.

At a somewhat early age for my time in my age, I started to become what is now called a straight ally. In high school, my history class had a current events day and one of the topics we were covering was homosexuality. My teacher explained that we would use proper language. However, as soon as the discussion began people started using derogatory words.

This upset me and I spoke out, and boy did I speak out. I raised my hand told the teacher he started out saying we could not use those words and now he is allowing it to happen and besides that, .... I challenged people's stereotypes classmates were speaking about promiscuity as an inherent homosexual trait, as if it were not something heterosexuals do as well. They spoke against it because sex was meant for making babies. So, I again asked how that was different than some heterosexual sex. Finally, they pulled out the big guns the Bible said it was wrong.

I had never been taught that. What we covered in Bible study and Sunday worship as I grew up did not address such things. Although I did remember something about Sodom and Gomorra being destroyed, I thought the sodomy happened with men and women and that the town was destroyed for its idolatry. It was only a year or two later that I was in college studying religion. I did not turn to the Bible to study what it said abut homosexuality until my third year in graduate school however. I did not care about what it said in the Bible. Most of what was in there I questioned anyway that was one of the things I was leaving out in my take-it-or-leave-it theology.

However, the second summer in graduate school called me to learn more. I was doing my Clinical Pastoral Education. One man in my group of interns was a Fundamentalist one was a homosexual, there was a Catholic, an Episcopal, and one other Unitarian Universalist.

There were some heated debates about homosexuality and it was personal, because one man, felt he could not work with the other man because he felt judged and did not like that the other one believed he was going to go to hell. The fundamentalist said he did not have anything against someone being homosexual he only thought it was wrong it one practiced homosexuality.

That to me makes no sense. The debate continued. The next semester I took a New Testament course and decided to find out just what it said in the Bible about homosexuality.

The teacher was very surprised that a heterosexual was doing this type of study. In his experience no one of his heterosexual students ever had. That to me was a surprise and a disappointment.

Today, I want to share with you some of what I learned. I decided to do this after I heard one particular denomination was doing a Bible study on homosexuality their objective was not to condemn homosexuals, the report said, but the practice of homosexuality.

And so, the Bible is used to condemn homosexuals and most likely people are using modern translations and not even bothering to find out what those words meant in Greek, as the Bible was originally written. Because, when you do that, you are left with more questions than answers.

There are two verses, in the New Testament which are cited as the condemnations against homosexuality.

One is from I Corinthians 6:9. It is a list of vices. It reads:

9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,

10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers--none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

Where the NRSV translates "arsenokites" as male prostitutes, many other versions translate it as homosexuals or as the KJV, effeminates. Others translate it was sexual perverts. So, to a modern reader it might appear clear depending on what translation they are reading that either male prostitution is wrong or that any homosexual relationship is wrong That is a big difference.

Reading the ancient text we learn that "arsenokite" is a new word in the New Testament an according to John Boswell, who wrote Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. It is not easy to be sure what it means. He also contends that it most likely refers to prostitution.

So, we cannot be clear.

His letter to the Romans, however has been the most damaging.

Romans is often deemed the most important of Paul's letters. It is referred to as a theological treatise, a letter-essay, even the last will and testament of Paul, and traditionally considered normative for Christianity. Since Romans 1:24-27 is typically quoted as an indictment against homosexuality in this text considered normative for Christianity , it is important to explore the question of homosexuality in this passage. It is difficult, however, to be sure about the meaning of the text because many words are obscure and confusing and thus variously interpreted through translation.

23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves,

25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural,

27 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.

28 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.

29 They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips,

30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents,

31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

32 They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die....

This passage was particularly damaging during the outbreak of AIDS. People said AIDS was the punishment for homosexuality Until one day, heterosexuals started to get it and hemophiliacs, young innocent children and then they had to rethink it however, homosexuals were still condemned and when they were dying of AIDS it was still seen as a punishment.

And yet, there is some question over the reliability of the passage because there are discrepancies. For example, in verse 24 there is discrepancy: the NRSV and the New American Standard Bible refer to "impurity," while the King James Version (KJV) and the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures refer to uncleanness. Furthermore, the Bible in Basic English and the Oxford Study Bible refer to "evil desires" and "vile desires" which have different implications than "uncleanness" or "impurity." Thus, these later two translations are not as reliable or faithful to the Greek. Even the discrepancy between "uncleanness" and "impurity" can make a difference in figuring out the ancient meaning. Another discrepancy is in verse 26. Here The NRSV translates "natural intercourse for unnatural", KJV translates "natural use into that which is against nature." The other versions mentioned here have similar discrepancies and some translate it as homosexual acts. At first these discrepancies may not seem too significant. However, for many of the words in this section it is important to know the Greek translation and the historical context behind these words.

Word Study Key terms are "impurity," "natural use" and "against nature." Study of these words will show the importance of the historical context of the words in attempting to figure out the ancient meaning of this passage. It will also highlight the difficulty in figuring out the original meaning.

A) Akatharsia Through examining different translations I found that "akatharsia" is translated as both uncleanness and impurity as well as evil and vile desires. "Impurity" would be a more faithful translation. It refers to "physical, cultic, and moral impurity, which are closely intertwined." In the Hebrew Bible impurity refers mostly to cultic matters and can be transmitted through means such as "sexual processes, or through idolatry." This is important in seeing that this passage is closely connected to idolatry and that the Judaic concern about cultic impurity may be an issue in this passage. This points to the question of whether or not this passage is referring to temple prostitution. Exploring this further through examining "natural use" and "against nature" shows that this is most likely connected to idolatry.

B) Para Physin The next terms I studied were "natural use" and especially the phrase "against nature" (para physin). The phrase "natural use" can be confusing. The term "use" (chrasis) seems obscure. Is it merited to translate this as intercourse? This confusion is somewhat lifted by the understanding that the "use of [charis] ... for sexual intercourse was well-established [in Paul's time]." Connecting this with the phrase "para physin" and its sexual connotations makes it probable that Paul is dealing with sexual matters. The question to turn to at this point is: what type of sexual matters is Paul addressing? The Greek phrase "para physin" is most literally translated as "against nature." Thus, "against nature" is preferable to the translation of "unnatural."
This is so because the phrase "against nature" is closer to the Greek phrase, Examining this historical context sheds light on two aspects of Paul's use of "physin." In the history of the word "physin" is closely related to creation and ethics. In Greek thought "physis" can "denote the creation."

The ethical aspect of "para physin" in Greek illustrates the difficulty in interpreting this passage. As related to ethics "kata physin" and "para physin" ["according to nature" and "against nature"] . . . occur in the ethical sphere, especially with a reference to sexual matters (e.g. pederasty)." Pederasty was the exchange of sex from a school boy to a teacher for the payment education. The question of whether or not this passage is referring to pederasty over homosexuality between adults is significant and difficult to answer. At this point we will turn to an examination of the question of pederasty brought up by the study of "para physin." Para Physin and Pederasty According to Harper's Bible Dictionary pederasty as the model for homosexuality was the historical context in which Paul wrote. Harper's states that the "prevailing model for homosexuality in Paul's day involved the sexual exploitation of preadolescent youth by an adult male for the purpose of the adult's own glorification" Furthermore, Robin Scroggs in The NT and Homosexuality asserts that the "'argument from nature' is a commonplace Greco-Roman attack on pederasty" So, it is feasible that what Paul is referring to is pederasty. However, it is also true that the usage of "para physin" during Paul's time also referred to other sexual practices. Philo, a Jewish Historian in Paul's time, uses "para physin" in an indictment against pederasty. He brands "pederasty as 'an unnatural pleasure' ["a pleasure against nature" would be a more literal translation] (ten para physin hedonen) He also writes in his Special Laws, III, 37 that "the greatest sin is the channeling of semen away from the natural, divinely intended purpose of procreation." Another contemporary to Paul, Musonius Rufus a Roman Stoic philosopher, referred to para physin and kata physin. He said marriage was "kata physin." He allowed "for sexual intercourse only within marriage and then only for procreation . . . Also when he speaks on sexual relations he refers to pederasty as para phusin tolemema ('an outrage against nature')." Thus, the phrase "para physin" is quite complicated and difficult to translate with any complete certainty about what exactly Paul meant. Para Physin, Procreation, and the Immediate Context of Rom 1:24-27 "para Physin" is closely related to sexual matters. Through the immediate context we see this is connected also to creation and procreation. Paul uses a word play between the people "Who exchanged the truth of God into a lie, and served and worshipped the creature more than the Creator" (KJV Rom 1:25) and the result of doing that which is "para physin." against nature Another important point to consider is that when Paul uses the phrase "para physin" h e is referring to what the women did. Pederasty was a male model. Does this throw the question of pederasty into further question? Not entirely. Paul does write "and likewise the men" (KJV) or "and in the same way also the men" (NRSV) in the following verse 1:27. This does connect the men with the phrase "para physin," but it is interesting that he chooses to use that phrase with reference to the women. Furthermore, this is possibly the only Biblical reference to homosexuality in women, if in fact it refers to homosexuality. Although if the issue here is more focused on procreation, this reference to exchanging the natural use [intercourse] for that which is against nature, or against creation, rather than pro-creation could refer to any number of sexual practices. There are a few alternatives that this reference to women could mean.

If Paul is mainly concerned with procreation as connected with his mention of creation, it would seem that the parallelism would lie in the fact that the sexual activity is not for procreation. Thus, it is still difficult to determine what type of sexual activity he is referring to for sure.

We still have the question of sexual practices connected with the temple or church. This is difficult to answer without any historical evidence. However, one can see Paul connecting the practice of idolatry, impurity, and sexual practices. At this point it will be helpful to refer to the larger context of Romans: Larger Context In the larger context of Romans, Paul is very much against giving into bodily desires. For example, in Rom 6:12 he writes "Let not sin therefore reign in your bodies, to make you obey your passion," Rom 8:7-13, "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot . . . If you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live" (RSV). This harks back to his statement in 1:32: "Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die" (RSV). I believe Paul's main concern is for doing things that are focused on the body rather than those that are focused on the Spirit. For Paul, sexual activity, other than that for procreation could only be about desire and passion. Paul wants to establish the spiritual as people's ideal nature (through the Christ Event people died to the flesh and were born to the spirit). Thus, changing the spiritual for physical leads people against their God-given nature through the Christ Event. Paul is concerned with passion and desires which can turn people away for their spiritual nature -- though passions and desires people are lead to change the spiritual for the physical.

Better yet, Paul prefers celibacy ( 1Cor 7:1b "It is well for a man not to touch a woman" (RSV).

Now, we don't see anyone quoting that passage as much as we do, passages abut homosexuality now do we?

As Richard Mohr points out is his book A More Perfect Union: Why Straight America Should Stand up for Gay Rights:
 

"religious arguments are also frequently used to condemn homosexuality. . . . homosexuality (it is claimed) is "contrary to nature" . . . Christ never mentions homosexuality. . . . What does seem clear is that those who regularly cite the Bible to condemn an activity like homosexuality do it selectively. Do clergy who site what they take to be condemnations of homosexuality in Leviticus maintain in their lives all the hygienic, dietary, and marital laws of Leviticus? .... It seems then both that the Bible is being used to ground condemnations of homosexuality as much as society's dislike of homosexuality is being used to interpret the Bible" (9)

There is so much more to say, this sharing with you is just a beginning. I hope what I shared today will give you some fuel for dialogue next time someone tells you "its in the Bible"