In an earlier comment, Nick pointed me to this post from Harold Paxton looking at the recent election of Bishop Robinson from the exact opposite point of view than mine. There’s certainly nothing wrong with that — as Mark Twain (I believe) said, it’s differences of opinion that make horse races.
In his post, he quotes two of the more definitive statements condemning homosexuality from the Bible — I Corinthians 6: 8-13, and Leviticus 18:22 (NIV). I’ll freely admit that on purely a “look — this is what the Bible says” standpoint, these two passages are extremely diffcult for me to argue with when trying to defend my beliefs that homosexuality is not a sin, not something that people should be condemned for, and something that should be accepted both in today’s society and today’s church. Both passages are fairly cut and dry in their equation of homosexuality and sin.
Yesterday, though, I happened across this post from Matt Zemek that does what I feel to be an admirable job of explaining why, as long as one is willing to allow for a less strictly literal reading of the Bible, modern Christians should be able to overlook someone’s sexuality when discussing matters of the faith.
So, is homosexuality a knowing choice against God? Until the early 1970s, world opinion was that it indeed was. But in the early 1970s, scientists in various fields (social, cognitive, biological, genetic) began to speak to the idea that homosexuality was not the perverted and twisted sinful choice that it had been thought to be through the centuries, from Old Testament times all the way to the middle of the 20th Century. It began to be determined–and has been continuously reaffirmed ever since–that homosexuality is genetically and biologically determined, that it is not a disease or an inherently twisted choice rooted in lustful, primal desires and nothing but.
In scientific communities, there is no doubt today that homosexuality is rooted in biology and genetics, and not in the perversity of human minds, period. Therefore, knowing what we know now–NOT in Paul’s time, NOT 100 years ago, but today–it is pretty clear that homosexuality is not a sin, because it does not fit the dynamic of a knowing and free choice against what is good or acceptable before God.
There’s more good stuff in the rest of Matt’s post. I’ll also admit that there are statements later in Matt’s post that I have a harder time agreeing with. However, his outlook on why homosexuality was condemned at the time the Bible was written but should not be today speaks strongly to me, and puts into words the vague concepts I’d had rattling around in my head but hadn’t been able to articulate.
In the end, on a personal level, I’ve never been able to believe that God is nearly as interested in our sex lives as we often think he is (a phrase I picked up from Dad). To me, the measure of Godliness in a person is a matter of how much they are able to love and respect others, regardless of whether one agrees on a personal level with their choices, and how you treat others at all times. I’ve seen gay relationships that are every bit as loving and respectful as heterosexual marriages — sometimes moreso — and I cannot believe that God would overlook the love between two people simply because they happen to have the same genetalia.
Homophobia, and the condemnation of homosexuality as “sin” is an ancient and outmoded way of thinking, prevalent at the time the Bible was written, but thoroughly debunked today. I think it’s wonderful that the Episcopal church is so publicly realizing this, and I can only hope that more people start looking at it this way.
