Be Yourself
Uniting Church in Australia
Judge Michael Kirby
queer saints
beyond issues |
Homosexuality:what the Bible really says
Homosexuality is a peripheral issue in the Bible. If the Biblical writers were as concerned with homosexuality as some Christians seem to be, why didn't they write about it more? Leviticus not only speaks against two men having sex, it condemns eating shell fish, pork, or rare meat; wearing clothes of mixed fabric; and intercourse during menstruation. Are Christians campaigning against all of the things forbidden in Leviticus, or just selectively choosing homosexuals as a target? Why don't we see more Christians picketing seafood restaurants? Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 say "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." These words come from the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual and rules manual for the priests of the tribes of Israel. Many Biblical scholars understand these rules and regulations as a means for Israel to preserve their distinctive religion and culture in the face of pagan practices which included cultic prostitution. Galatians 3:22-25 tells us that Christians are no longer bound by these laws. We live in Jesus Christ, not in Leviticus. Jesus Christ's teachings about law emphasized love, justice, mercy, and faith. Jesus never once said anything about homosexuality. Apparently, it just wasn't an issue to him. If you insist that gay men follow the Holiness Code of Leviticus, then you must yourself uphold all the Levitical laws consistently. The Code of Leviticus clearly prohibits eating pork, lobster, shrimp, oysters, or rare meat. Are you going to insist with as much vigor and righteousness that sea food restaurants and groceries be shut down? Leviticus also prohibits the wearing of mixed fabrics, and intercourse during the menstrual period. The Code commands that all people who have committed adultery must be killed. Please do not pick out one law from Leviticus to judge others without being willing yourself to uphold every other law delivered in this book.
Sexuality is not a sin. It is a God-given part of being human. Sin is turning from God and all that God gives us, including our sexuality. Jesus died for our sins, not our sexuality.
Can you provide a spiritual perspective on gay men's promiscuity, anonymous sex, experimentation with fetishes? This is a question about sexual ethics. Our sexuality is a gift from God. How we use our sexuality can be creative, consensual, safe, and loving, or it can be destructive, coercive, unsafe, and unloving. If it is creative, consensual, safe, and loving, then it is of God. If it is destructive, coercive, unsafe, or unloving, then it is not of God. This ethic is based on I John 4:16, "God is love. All who live in love live in God, and God in them." There are many gay men (and lesbians and heterosexuals and bisexuals) who have multiple sex partners, who practice anonymous sex, and experiment with fetishes. Is it possible for these expressions of sexuality to be loving and creative? Some people believe that it is, within the context of consensual safe sex between (or among) adults. In the era of HIV, sexual ethics have an added dimension. Having unprotected sex means putting both partners at risk for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. That is a destructive use of sexuality. A person who has unprotected sex with one person nay be considered unethical, while a person who has loving, consensual, and safe sex with multiple partners is acting ethically. Some people arrive at different conclusions about these issues. To the crowd who were ready to stone the woman caught in adultery Jesus said: "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone." (John 8:7) The fact is that people with a homosexual orientation are no more promiscuous than people with a heterosexual orientation. Promiscuous behaviour is not a gay issue.
For many years the canon law of the Church permitted a husband to beat his wife. There are mant aspects of sexual ethics which required thoughtful examination by Christians.
Straight people don't bother me . . .
|
