Believe Differently

Ok, now it is time for something different. I have said all I want to say, for now, on the subject of science and truth – although I am far from done. It is time for me to move onto another subject. In my opening posts on this website, I mentioned that I felt God had changed my mind concerning a number of issues, including the subject of homosexuality. It is to this subject I now wish to turn. Brace yourselves for an extended series of posts; I have a lot to say.

Let me nail my colours to the mast right at the outset though. I do not believe the bible speaks directly to the very modern understanding of a psycho sexual immutable orientation and I am flabbergasted why people find it unimportant and unnecessary for us to develop a theological understanding that recognizes and resources those Christian people who find this relevant to their situation.

Let me be clear, the recognition of an immutable sexual orientation is a very modern notion and an understanding beyond that of the Old Testament and New Testament writers. In fact, in Old Testament terms, there is not even any such label that could be ascribed to an individual. There is only the thought that a “[male] shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female”.1 2 This is an important point: no label was required, no word existed, because Old Testament culture was blind to, and had no concept of, a homosexual orientation. For the Old Testament authors, there was only the concept of a heterosexual person having relations with someone of their own gender. Something which clearly they considered an abomination! In fact from an Old Testament perspective they did not even have the category of a heterosexual person because such a label was meaningless in a world where there was not another category from which it should be distinguished.

I cannot over emphasize the point I am trying to make here. The Old Testament does not speak of, and cannot speak to, the modern notion of a homosexual orientation. It cannot resource us directly in developing a modern theology which clearly needs to make such a distinction. To retrospectively read the modern category onto the Old Testament understanding of a “male lying with a male” is to superimpose onto the text a meaning which is not intrinsic within it. According to Old Testament understanding, these texts speak only of heterosexual persons sleeping with other heterosexual persons. If you want to, and find the need to, condemn such an activity, these texts can resource the statement that such an act is a sin; but again, let me be clear: these texts are not talking about homosexual persons; they cannot speak to a concept about which they had no idea and not even the language to consider.

The Hebrew language does not provide for the heterosexual / homosexual distinction.3 This is important to understand because a culture can only engage in matters about which it can distinguish. Language is that which orders our thoughts and enquires. It is a system of differentiators; it delineates a tree from a bush, pink from purple, male from female etc. It is therefore possible to understand something of a culture’s preoccupations and also the reverse for which the culture’s language does not have the intellectual resources to engage. For the Old Testament Hebrew, homosexuality falls into the latter category.

I know I am repeating myself but I want to ensure you get this point. The Old Testament texts as we have them today were produced by a culture with no concept of a homosexual orientation. To use these texts to resource a homophobic interpretation, is to violate the text and make it say more than it does.

Now here is the rub: a culture which clearly did not engage with the issue of homosexuality, and had no concept of the matter, cannot possibly teach us anything concerning it. Old Testament Hebrew culture was blind to this modern understanding, it had no intellectual resources upon which to hang the concept: no words, labels, nothing. How can such a culture teach us anything concerning it? The answer is: it can’t! It cannot tell us a single thing about something of which it was oblivious. Hebrew culture simply cannot resource us in any way in our quest for a modern theological understanding of the homosexual situation.

This is not the whole story though, and here I want to make an important but subtle distinction, the Old Testament might still be able to resource us so long as we are prepared to recognize and realize that, actually, whenever we read the bible, we are not really very interested in authorial intention. I am opening up a mine field here but it is very necessary for us to get into the subject of hermeneutics if we are going to engage in this matter appropriately. The subtle point I am making is that when we read the bible, more often than not, we are bringing as much meaning to the text as we are taking from it. Very often we do not care in the slightest what the original author intended to communicate. We are more concerned about what the text means for us today. In a sense, we are not concerned with what the original human author meant but what the divine author meant to communicate through the text within the whole context of scripture. Therefore we might suggest that although the Old Testament is silent concerning the modern notion of an immutable homosexual orientation, the New Testament isn’t – actually although for the point of the argument I will accept this proposition, I do believe the New Testament is also silent, but I will unpack this more in a latter blog. We could argue that we should read this New Testament notion back into the Old and that this is something we do all the time when we read scripture. In which case we could consume these Old Testament verses and use them to resource a homophobic interpretation. But let me be clear, although I can accept this as a valid hermeneutical strategy, I must emphasize it is clearly an interpretive strategy. You cannot choose to follow such a strategy and then argue you are reading the bible literally because you are not! You could argue that you are seeking to hear the divine voice superimposed on the whole of the biblical narrative and I would accept this position. But I would also emphasize that I am trying to do the same. My question is: whose interpretation is correct? Since we both admit to not reading the text literally, whose understanding is more valid?

I have indeed opened a mine field and I look forward to your comments. I hope the hermeneutical discussion, though, will not detract from the main. The point I want to make clear at the end of this post, is that no matter which side of the fence you sit concerning this subject, you are interpreting. Although, I am going to argue in future posts that my position is more literal, and more in tune with the sentiments of the original authors, I also will hold my hands up and say I am interpreting – especially when I also want to lay claim to the voice of the divine author as I hear him (her) speaking through the biblical text.

I look forward to your comments.

1. Lev 18:22 [NASB] [↩]
2. Daniel A. Helminak. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality (New Mexico: Alamo Square Press, 2000) 51 – A more literal translation of the Hebrew: “With a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman”. [↩]
3. The Hebrew word Kadash was mistranslated as sodomite in the King James translation of the Old Testament but actaully it should be translated Temple Prostitute of which there were both male and female; and there is no eveidence to suggest that these prostitues serviced their own gender. But even if they did, this term still bares no resembalance to the modern concept of a psycho sexual immutable orientation - John Boswell Christianity Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1980) 99 [↩]